A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

So who can the President fire?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 2nd 19, 02:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,990
Default So who can the President fire?

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 5:01:16 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 7:55:57 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Jay Beattie says: " This is what the government would have proved at trial."

Really? Surely you mean "This is what the government CLAIMS it would have proved at trial." The Mueller team of Democrat donors first bankrupted General Flynn and then threatened to go after his son if he didn't roll over. There's a very large difference between extorting a confession from someone by threats to his family, and proving whatever he confesses to under duress in a contested case in court. Surely they taught you that much at college? If not, you should ask for your tuition to be returned.

This "Russia Dossier -- Mueller Special Counsel Investigation" will go down in history as the most corrupt series of incidents in all of American history.


Top-posting is a federal offense.


Kiss my ass.

Happy new year Andre!


Since I don't live in PDX, I wish you a year in which you can put up your hourly rate to a thousand dollars.

Things slow down at the pulp (fiction) mill?


Nah. The press got taken over by one of the Big Three, precisely for the literary quality of its writers, and everyone got well to several factors of capital gains, which attracts a lower tax rate, as I'm sure you keep telling your clients from Big Oil.

I know how disappointing it can be to actually look at a transcript where an intelligent, high level official represented by the greatest (over-priced) legal talent in the United States cops a plea in open court -- after ten minutes of admonitions and specifically states under oath that the plea is voluntary and not coerced. Recall that the plea was to lying and not the underlying (possible) Logan Act violation or other federal law violations. We'll learn about that later when the Mueller report is issued. Flynn lied, got caught and got prosecuted. It's pretty simple. He'll get probation or maybe a suntan opportunity at Club Fed. BTW, all criminal investigations are coercive, and when you lie and get caught, you're just throwing gasoline on the fire. Nixon and Clinton proved that point.

-- Jay Beattie.


Oh, I read that when it first became available via NR's Andy McCarthy, I think. I'm a sucker for reading deceptively nuanced prose. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I wasn't disappointed at all. It reads to me, as I expected, like a wholelotta "intelligent, high level officials" -- what was it that judge said again, ah, yes --"composing". And certainly what they're composing isn't music.

Funny thing: the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn first said he hadn't lied.. It was Mueller, who wasn't in the room, who decided that after all he was lying, and disappeared the agents' original reports, and wiped their phones, for which one hopes he will be held to account. Funny thing, that sequence, but only if your sense of justice is blunted. (Well, or if you're a lawyer who doesn't believe in the concept of exculpatory evidence.)

AJ
Who will watch the watchers?
Ads
  #12  
Old January 2nd 19, 03:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,990
Default So who can the President fire?

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 8:50:50 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/1/2019 9:55 AM, Andre Jute wrote:


"the most corrupt series of incidents in all of American
history."

Let's not go over the edge. This is bad, yes, but nowhere
near the complete takeover of the White House and State
Department during wartime by Harry Hopkins and dozens of
other agents of Stalin.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


That crowd cut no ice with Harry Truman, who considered them effete elitists, and even if Roosevelt had survived, the famous telegram in which General Lucius Clay made Congress hear the Soviet tanks rumbling would likely have put an end to their influence.

The criminalisation of political differences, which we're seeing unfolding before our eyes, of which the Mueller circus is a small cog, is of far greater importance, and far more deeply corrupting than anything the fellow travellers before and during the war could have achieved in their limited spheres. The Fuchs and the Rosenbergs did the real damage, and that wasn't subtle influence but outright theft of technology (the Rosenbergs were caught when a decoded signal from them was matched word for word to a sheet at Los Alamos in Fuchs' handwriting).

Andre Jute
Ringside seats to History Unfolding -- come join us, Mr Fukuyama
  #13  
Old January 2nd 19, 03:46 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default So who can the President fire?

On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 17:46:43 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 5:19:06 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/1/2019 2:30 PM, wrote:

Jay, it is always pleasant to know to exactly what lengths you and other
leftists are willing to go to attacking even the least man in Trump's administration.

I would like to ask you quite plainly - do you really believe that this
is not going to rebound on you? That the same tactics that you've been
willing to use will not in turn be used upon you? Or are you still
filled with pride with getting away without punishment for locking
114,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps while we
had Americans in Europe fighting Germans in part because they were
locking Jews into concentration camps?

Jay, I have to take Tom's side on that point. If it really was you who
locked 114,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps -
well, shame on you!


On the other hand, you've really got to applaud his productivity.


Well thank you! People just don't understand how HARD it is to get 114,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps. I was exhausted before I was even born. Nobody had ever done it before. It was huge, and it will be many, many years before anybody does it again. Probably never because it was so huge. And you know, I talk to my Japanese friends and even they say, "Jay, you did such an awesome and good job. A hugely awesome good job like nobody had done before!"

-- @therealJayBeattie.


I'm sure that you must have also had a hand in the recruiting of the
44th Infantry Regiment which was made up of Japanese-Americans and was
the most decorated regiment in the history of the U.S. Army.

cheers,

John B.


  #14  
Old January 2nd 19, 08:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,197
Default So who can the President fire?

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 5:46:45 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 5:19:06 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/1/2019 2:30 PM, wrote:

Jay, it is always pleasant to know to exactly what lengths you and other
leftists are willing to go to attacking even the least man in Trump's administration.

I would like to ask you quite plainly - do you really believe that this
is not going to rebound on you? That the same tactics that you've been
willing to use will not in turn be used upon you? Or are you still
filled with pride with getting away without punishment for locking
114,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps while we
had Americans in Europe fighting Germans in part because they were
locking Jews into concentration camps?

Jay, I have to take Tom's side on that point. If it really was you who
locked 114,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps -
well, shame on you!


On the other hand, you've really got to applaud his productivity.


Well thank you! People just don't understand how HARD it is to get 114,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps. I was exhausted before I was even born. Nobody had ever done it before. It was huge, and it will be many, many years before anybody does it again. Probably never because it was so huge. And you know, I talk to my Japanese friends and even they say, "Jay, you did such an awesome and good job. A hugely awesome good job like nobody had done before!"

-- @therealJayBeattie.

So the pretense of you and Frank is that these aren't the people you support. That since it wasn't you personally that you can still support them and remain blameless. The same defense used by the guards at Auschwitz; "I was just following orders."
  #15  
Old January 2nd 19, 08:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,197
Default So who can the President fire?

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 5:56:54 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:

Tom, I'm not so sure it was Mueller who obtained those FISA warrants; it'll bear comparing dates of the warrants with when he was appointed. But the FBI brass and a scad of DOJ staff, including Rosenstein, are certainly culpable of misleading the FISA court.

I wrote a longer reply to Andrew Muzi's post, and then scratched it. Jay knows all this stuff about Mueller coercing General Flynn by first bankrupting him and then threatening to do the same to his son but that is such commonplace prosecutorial behaviour in Federal cases, Jay doesn't care that it is vicious and unprincipled behaviour on Mueller's part, perfectly worthy of Stalin's pet prosecutor. So I just sent the shorter post. We're not going to change anyone's mind he these clowns have chosen a party-political side, and they're defending that no matter how immoral it is, and how vicious it will still become. This is the sorriest spectacle Americans have made of themselves since they impeached Bill Clinton for what should have been regarded as his private behaviour. (I said so at the time, and was howled down.) Hell, it might be worse than attempting to impeach Nixon because they didn't like him.

AJ

Judicial Watch obtained copies of the emails upon which Mueller was at least copied. If he was not the team leader at this time and since this was illegal, for Mueller to at the very least not recuse himself means that he accepted full responsibility
  #16  
Old January 2nd 19, 09:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,197
Default So who can the President fire?

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 5:01:16 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 7:55:57 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Jay Beattie says: " This is what the government would have proved at trial."

Really? Surely you mean "This is what the government CLAIMS it would have proved at trial." The Mueller team of Democrat donors first bankrupted General Flynn and then threatened to go after his son if he didn't roll over. There's a very large difference between extorting a confession from someone by threats to his family, and proving whatever he confesses to under duress in a contested case in court. Surely they taught you that much at college? If not, you should ask for your tuition to be returned.

This "Russia Dossier -- Mueller Special Counsel Investigation" will go down in history as the most corrupt series of incidents in all of American history.


Top-posting is a federal offense.


Kiss my ass.

Happy new year Andre!


Since I don't live in PDX, I wish you a year in which you can put up your hourly rate to a thousand dollars.

Things slow down at the pulp (fiction) mill?


Nah. The press got taken over by one of the Big Three, precisely for the literary quality of its writers, and everyone got well to several factors of capital gains, which attracts a lower tax rate, as I'm sure you keep telling your clients from Big Oil.

I know how disappointing it can be to actually look at a transcript where an intelligent, high level official represented by the greatest (over-priced) legal talent in the United States cops a plea in open court -- after ten minutes of admonitions and specifically states under oath that the plea is voluntary and not coerced. Recall that the plea was to lying and not the underlying (possible) Logan Act violation or other federal law violations.. We'll learn about that later when the Mueller report is issued. Flynn lied, got caught and got prosecuted. It's pretty simple. He'll get probation or maybe a suntan opportunity at Club Fed. BTW, all criminal investigations are coercive, and when you lie and get caught, you're just throwing gasoline on the fire. Nixon and Clinton proved that point.

-- Jay Beattie.


Oh, I read that when it first became available via NR's Andy McCarthy, I think. I'm a sucker for reading deceptively nuanced prose. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I wasn't disappointed at all. It reads to me, as I expected, like a wholelotta "intelligent, high level officials" -- what was it that judge said again, ah, yes --"composing". And certainly what they're composing isn't music.

Funny thing: the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn first said he hadn't lied. It was Mueller, who wasn't in the room, who decided that after all he was lying, and disappeared the agents' original reports, and wiped their phones, for which one hopes he will be held to account. Funny thing, that sequence, but only if your sense of justice is blunted. (Well, or if you're a lawyer who doesn't believe in the concept of exculpatory evidence.)

AJ
Who will watch the watchers?


While Lyndon Johnson was in the Oval office he was so well thought of as of his honesty that the 89th Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act. Funny how it has been the strong point in showing the people in this country what Democrats really are.
  #17  
Old January 2nd 19, 09:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,197
Default So who can the President fire?

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 7:46:39 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 17:46:43 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 5:19:06 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/1/2019 2:30 PM, wrote:

Jay, it is always pleasant to know to exactly what lengths you and other
leftists are willing to go to attacking even the least man in Trump's administration.

I would like to ask you quite plainly - do you really believe that this
is not going to rebound on you? That the same tactics that you've been
willing to use will not in turn be used upon you? Or are you still
filled with pride with getting away without punishment for locking
114,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps while we
had Americans in Europe fighting Germans in part because they were
locking Jews into concentration camps?

Jay, I have to take Tom's side on that point. If it really was you who
locked 114,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps -
well, shame on you!


On the other hand, you've really got to applaud his productivity.


Well thank you! People just don't understand how HARD it is to get 114,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps. I was exhausted before I was even born. Nobody had ever done it before. It was huge, and it will be many, many years before anybody does it again. Probably never because it was so huge. And you know, I talk to my Japanese friends and even they say, "Jay, you did such an awesome and good job. A hugely awesome good job like nobody had done before!"

-- @therealJayBeattie.


I'm sure that you must have also had a hand in the recruiting of the
44th Infantry Regiment which was made up of Japanese-Americans and was
the most decorated regiment in the history of the U.S. Army.

cheers,

John B.


Do you mean the segregated American regiment. Sort of like some 700,000 black Americans whose efforts in the war did everything from breaking the Battle of the Bulge to saving bridges all over France so that the tankers could cross. And the American military didn't even recognize them. It wasn't until Eisenhower got in until the service was desegregated. Of course this segregation has been blamed on the Republicans ever since.
  #18  
Old January 2nd 19, 09:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,990
Default So who can the President fire?

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 8:59:23 PM UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 5:56:54 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:

Tom, I'm not so sure it was Mueller who obtained those FISA warrants; it'll bear comparing dates of the warrants with when he was appointed. But the FBI brass and a scad of DOJ staff, including Rosenstein, are certainly culpable of misleading the FISA court.

I wrote a longer reply to Andrew Muzi's post, and then scratched it. Jay knows all this stuff about Mueller coercing General Flynn by first bankrupting him and then threatening to do the same to his son but that is such commonplace prosecutorial behaviour in Federal cases, Jay doesn't care that it is vicious and unprincipled behaviour on Mueller's part, perfectly worthy of Stalin's pet prosecutor. So I just sent the shorter post. We're not going to change anyone's mind he these clowns have chosen a party-political side, and they're defending that no matter how immoral it is, and how vicious it will still become. This is the sorriest spectacle Americans have made of themselves since they impeached Bill Clinton for what should have been regarded as his private behaviour. (I said so at the time, and was howled down.) Hell, it might be worse than attempting to impeach Nixon because they didn't like him.

AJ

Judicial Watch obtained copies of the emails upon which Mueller was at least copied. If he was not the team leader at this time and since this was illegal, for Mueller to at the very least not recuse himself means that he accepted full responsibility


I read somewhere a list of officials who have to sign off on a FISA warrant request. I was first of all very senior officials, all the way up to the Attorney General and the Deputy, the Director of the CIA, etc, etc, and
a very long list for a national security matter. Those are all complicit in lying to FISA. If Mueller was on the circulation list, as a previous high official of the DOJ and the FBI Director, he should have said something.

AJ
  #19  
Old January 2nd 19, 09:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,767
Default So who can the President fire?

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 1:08:28 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 5:01:16 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 7:55:57 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Jay Beattie says: " This is what the government would have proved at trial."

Really? Surely you mean "This is what the government CLAIMS it would have proved at trial." The Mueller team of Democrat donors first bankrupted General Flynn and then threatened to go after his son if he didn't roll over. There's a very large difference between extorting a confession from someone by threats to his family, and proving whatever he confesses to under duress in a contested case in court. Surely they taught you that much at college? If not, you should ask for your tuition to be returned.

This "Russia Dossier -- Mueller Special Counsel Investigation" will go down in history as the most corrupt series of incidents in all of American history.

Top-posting is a federal offense.


Kiss my ass.

Happy new year Andre!


Since I don't live in PDX, I wish you a year in which you can put up your hourly rate to a thousand dollars.

Things slow down at the pulp (fiction) mill?


Nah. The press got taken over by one of the Big Three, precisely for the literary quality of its writers, and everyone got well to several factors of capital gains, which attracts a lower tax rate, as I'm sure you keep telling your clients from Big Oil.

I know how disappointing it can be to actually look at a transcript where an intelligent, high level official represented by the greatest (over-priced) legal talent in the United States cops a plea in open court -- after ten minutes of admonitions and specifically states under oath that the plea is voluntary and not coerced. Recall that the plea was to lying and not the underlying (possible) Logan Act violation or other federal law violations. We'll learn about that later when the Mueller report is issued. Flynn lied, got caught and got prosecuted. It's pretty simple. He'll get probation or maybe a suntan opportunity at Club Fed. BTW, all criminal investigations are coercive, and when you lie and get caught, you're just throwing gasoline on the fire. Nixon and Clinton proved that point.

-- Jay Beattie.


Oh, I read that when it first became available via NR's Andy McCarthy, I think. I'm a sucker for reading deceptively nuanced prose. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I wasn't disappointed at all. It reads to me, as I expected, like a wholelotta "intelligent, high level officials" -- what was it that judge said again, ah, yes --"composing". And certainly what they're composing isn't music.

Funny thing: the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn first said he hadn't lied. It was Mueller, who wasn't in the room, who decided that after all he was lying, and disappeared the agents' original reports, and wiped their phones, for which one hopes he will be held to account. Funny thing, that sequence, but only if your sense of justice is blunted. (Well, or if you're a lawyer who doesn't believe in the concept of exculpatory evidence.)

AJ
Who will watch the watchers?


While Lyndon Johnson was in the Oval office he was so well thought of as of his honesty that the 89th Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act.. Funny how it has been the strong point in showing the people in this country what Democrats really are.



FOIA was authored by a Democrat, John Moss, from CALIFORNIA 3rd District. It revised provision that had been in the APA since 1946, and Moss had worked for 12 years to get it through congress. It passed through the 89th congress -- through a house and senate both controlled by Democrats. It was signed by a Democratic president. How much more Democratic can you make a piece of legislation.

Interestingly, President Ford opposed amendments in 1974 that form the back-bone of the current FOIA. His veto was overridden by congress:

Following the Watergate scandal, President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign FOIA-strengthening amendments in the Privacy Act of 1974, but White House Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld and deputy Dick Cheney were concerned about leaks. Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Antonin Scalia advised the bill was unconstitutional and even telephoned the CIA asking them to lobby a particular White House staffer. President Ford was persuaded to veto the bill on October 17, 1974, according to documents declassified in 2004. However, on November 21, the lame-duck Congress overrode President Ford's veto, giving the United States the core Freedom of Information Act still in effect today, with judicial review of executive secrecy claims.

Scalia remained highly critical of the 1974 amendments, writing years later that "It is the Taj Mahal of the Doctrine of Unanticipated Consequences, the Sistine Chapel of Cost-Benefit Analysis Ignored." Scalia particularly disliked the availability of judicial review, decrying that if "an agency denies a freedom of information request, shazam!—the full force of the Third Branch of the government is summoned to the wronged party's assistance."

-- Jay Beattie.
  #20  
Old January 2nd 19, 09:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,197
Default So who can the President fire?

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 1:46:12 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 1:08:28 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 5:01:16 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 7:55:57 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Jay Beattie says: " This is what the government would have proved at trial."

Really? Surely you mean "This is what the government CLAIMS it would have proved at trial." The Mueller team of Democrat donors first bankrupted General Flynn and then threatened to go after his son if he didn't roll over. There's a very large difference between extorting a confession from someone by threats to his family, and proving whatever he confesses to under duress in a contested case in court. Surely they taught you that much at college? If not, you should ask for your tuition to be returned.

This "Russia Dossier -- Mueller Special Counsel Investigation" will go down in history as the most corrupt series of incidents in all of American history.

Top-posting is a federal offense.

Kiss my ass.

Happy new year Andre!

Since I don't live in PDX, I wish you a year in which you can put up your hourly rate to a thousand dollars.

Things slow down at the pulp (fiction) mill?

Nah. The press got taken over by one of the Big Three, precisely for the literary quality of its writers, and everyone got well to several factors of capital gains, which attracts a lower tax rate, as I'm sure you keep telling your clients from Big Oil.

I know how disappointing it can be to actually look at a transcript where an intelligent, high level official represented by the greatest (over-priced) legal talent in the United States cops a plea in open court -- after ten minutes of admonitions and specifically states under oath that the plea is voluntary and not coerced. Recall that the plea was to lying and not the underlying (possible) Logan Act violation or other federal law violations. We'll learn about that later when the Mueller report is issued. Flynn lied, got caught and got prosecuted. It's pretty simple. He'll get probation or maybe a suntan opportunity at Club Fed. BTW, all criminal investigations are coercive, and when you lie and get caught, you're just throwing gasoline on the fire. Nixon and Clinton proved that point.

-- Jay Beattie.

Oh, I read that when it first became available via NR's Andy McCarthy, I think. I'm a sucker for reading deceptively nuanced prose. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I wasn't disappointed at all. It reads to me, as I expected, like a wholelotta "intelligent, high level officials" -- what was it that judge said again, ah, yes --"composing". And certainly what they're composing isn't music.

Funny thing: the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn first said he hadn't lied. It was Mueller, who wasn't in the room, who decided that after all he was lying, and disappeared the agents' original reports, and wiped their phones, for which one hopes he will be held to account. Funny thing, that sequence, but only if your sense of justice is blunted. (Well, or if you're a lawyer who doesn't believe in the concept of exculpatory evidence.)

AJ
Who will watch the watchers?


While Lyndon Johnson was in the Oval office he was so well thought of as of his honesty that the 89th Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act. Funny how it has been the strong point in showing the people in this country what Democrats really are.



FOIA was authored by a Democrat, John Moss, from CALIFORNIA 3rd District. It revised provision that had been in the APA since 1946, and Moss had worked for 12 years to get it through congress. It passed through the 89th congress -- through a house and senate both controlled by Democrats. It was signed by a Democratic president. How much more Democratic can you make a piece of legislation.

Interestingly, President Ford opposed amendments in 1974 that form the back-bone of the current FOIA. His veto was overridden by congress:

Following the Watergate scandal, President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign FOIA-strengthening amendments in the Privacy Act of 1974, but White House Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld and deputy Dick Cheney were concerned about leaks. Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Antonin Scalia advised the bill was unconstitutional and even telephoned the CIA asking them to lobby a particular White House staffer. President Ford was persuaded to veto the bill on October 17, 1974, according to documents declassified in 2004. However, on November 21, the lame-duck Congress overrode President Ford's veto, giving the United States the core Freedom of Information Act still in effect today, with judicial review of executive secrecy claims..

Scalia remained highly critical of the 1974 amendments, writing years later that "It is the Taj Mahal of the Doctrine of Unanticipated Consequences, the Sistine Chapel of Cost-Benefit Analysis Ignored." Scalia particularly disliked the availability of judicial review, decrying that if "an agency denies a freedom of information request, shazam!—the full force of the Third Branch of the government is summoned to the wronged party's assistance."

-- Jay Beattie.


Why are you insinuating that because it was passed by Democrats (from a state that was STRONGLY Republican) that it hasn't been the Democrats who have been exposed FAR more than Republicans. Funny thing of where the nations dishonesty really lies.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The president on holiday Alycidon UK 15 August 24th 15 08:54 AM
UCI President Pat McQuaid said... [email protected] Racing 0 August 5th 13 06:46 AM
President Obama.... atriage[_6_] Racing 1 July 24th 11 05:31 PM
Ed Dolan the Great for President! JimmyMac Mountain Biking 5 September 9th 08 01:25 AM
Ewoud Dronkert for President!!! Richard Longwood Racing 18 November 10th 04 06:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.