This just keeps getting crazier and crazier….the Constitution says US Citizens have a RIGHT to a speedy trial, by a jury and be able to face your accusers.
January 24, 2013
Judge Napolitano: Invoking Executive Privilege Opens Holder Up To Charges Of ‘Misleading The Congress
June 20, 2012
Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on Fox News Channel’s America Live to discuss President Barack Obama’s invocation of executive privilege to keep certain documents relating to the Fast and Furious gun walking scandal from being released. “They can’t have it both ways,” Napolitano said. The administration could argue that Fast and Furious related to national security, which would be covered by executive privilege, but that would open Attorney General Eric Holder to charges he mislead Congress.
We may be on the precipice of a constitutional confrontation between the executive branch, the White House, and the Congress. Executive privilege is defined in the leading Supreme Court case, interestingly United States v. Nixon, that’s Richard Nixon, that’s the Watergate-era. That’s the efforts of the special prosecutor to subpoena tapes from President Nixon as protecting conversation with the President himself.
Now the letter that Eric Holder wrote to the President saying ‘please give me executive privilege’ does not say ‘because I discussed this with you Mr. President, but the implication is there. Executive privilege protects communications with the president; the human being of the president – not the people who work for him and the Justice Department.
Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer summarized Napolitano’s argument, that he feels that these documents relating to Fast and Furious are not subject to executive privilege, and asked “why would [the White House] seek this?”
Napolitano said that there is something in the documents that Holder is trying to keep secret. “If the Attorney General discussed this with the President, he probably doesn’t want the Congress and the public to know that because we know about the awful events that occurred as a result of the Fast and Furious escapade,” said Napolitano.
He said that executive privilege only applies to matters of national security and “fighting the drug war,” in his opinion, would have to be defined by the administration as falling within the rubric of national security.
“The last time this happened – 40-years-ago in the Nixon Watergate saga, a federal judge ruled against the President and the Supreme Court upheld his ruling,” said Napolitano. “We may see this going in that direction now.”
Finally, Napolitano inferred that the invocation of executive privilege suggests that Holder discussed the details of this operation with the President which is “at odds” with his testimony before Congress – this could lead to a charge of “misleading the Congress.”
“They can’t have it both ways,” Napolitano concluded. “If the President was not personally involved, executive privilege does not apply.” He said that the administration could make a case that these documents relate to national security, but that would contradict Holder’s testimony before Congress.
August 2, 2011
Well here’s the first thing we can see wrong with the “Super Congress”
The debt ceiling deal will pass the Senate early this afternoon. No suspense there. But the vote will be worth watching for another reason: Three Republican Senate sources tell TWS that senators who vote against the deal will be ineligible to serve on the so-called “supercommittee” for deficit reduction that the legislation creates.
While there’s certain logic to such a policy, it could be self-defeating. Excluding those who vote against the debt deal will ensure that some of the most fiscally conservative members of the Senate Republican caucus, including most of its freshmen, will be reading about the committee’s activities in the newspaper rather than guiding its decisions. Among those who have already declared their opposition to the deal: libertarian-leaning senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul; Jim DeMint, the aggressive fiscal hawk from South Carolina; conservative reformers Ron Johnson from Wisconsin and Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania; the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, Jeff Sessions; and Florida’s Marco Rubio, already one of the highest-profile conservatives in Congress.
More worrisome for conservatives, however, is that private whip counts in the Senate found that some 20 Republicans expressed support for the proposals that came out of the Gang of Six. And while many of the components of that plan have merit as individual policy proposals, the package involves compromises on taxes anathema to most conservatives. Picking a Gang of Six member – or supporter – would further antagonize conservatives skeptical of the debt ceiling deal.
There’s the problem. If, say, a dozen of the strongest fiscal conservatives vote against the deal, the pool of Republicans that can be expected to hold the line on taxes shrinks very quickly. And if a key Republican objective for the committee is to block tax increases, the exclusion of these strong fiscal conservatives makes meeting that goal more difficult.
Mitch McConnell, who will make the selections, isn’t worried. He told Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto yesterday that the likelihood of tax hikes coming out of the committee is “pretty low.”
“What I can pretty certainly say to the American people, the chances of any kind of tax increase passing with this, with the appointees of John Boehner and I, are going to put in there are pretty low,” said McConnell. He added: “I’m comfortable we aren’t going to raise taxes coming out of this joint committee.”
UPDATE: McConnell spokesman Don Stewart says all senators will be considered. (Time will tell) “No one is stronger in his opposition to tax hikes than Sen. McConnell. He will have serious discussions with all those who are interested in serving prior to making any appointments.”
I might add:….
In addition, the Obama administration has already indicated that it will take the deciding vote as the de facto 13th member of the Super Congress. During his press briefing yesterday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the government would work with the Super Congress to hike taxes in 2012 and beyond.
As the Huffington Post reported last month, the debt deal that has already been passed by the House and faces the Senate tomorrow will create an unconstitutional “Super Congress” that will be comprised of six Republicans and six Democrats and granted “extraordinary new powers” to quickly force legislation through both chambers.
Legislation decided on by the Super Congress would be immune from amendment and lawmakers would only be able to register an up or down vote, eliminating the ability to filibuster. The Speaker of the House would effectively lose the power to prevent unpopular bills from making it to the House floor.
But far from just being a committee that would make recommendations concerning the debt ceiling, the body is now to be granted “even greater super powers, according to multiple news reports and congressional aides with knowledge of the plan,” writes Michael McAuliff.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled no punches in making it plain that the Super Congress would have supreme authority. “The joint committee — there are no constraints,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “They (the Super Congress) can look at any program we have in government, any program. … It has the ability to look at everything.”
February 15, 2011
What a disgrace by this newly elected Republican controlled House of Representatives to extend the unconstitutional Patriot Act. When you listen to this video of Rand Paul talking to Judge Andrew Napolitano you’ll be astounded as to what is being done possibly to you without your knowledge or a judge because of the Patriot Act.
The 4th Amendment IS CLEAR! We either believe in the constitution or we don’t!
On Monday night, the U.S. House voted 275-144 to shred the Constitution by passing the so-called PATRIOT” Act. Now the fight moves to the Senate. There should be bipartisan outrage over this issue! The 4th amendment is clear as day!
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
- 200,000 Times in the last 10 years National security letters being signed by federal agents not judges.
- 2,000,000 Times the banks reported to the federal government about your banking through the use of suspicious account reports..(not judges with warrants)
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
December 7, 2010
news, Politics AIG, bank of america, bank tax, Chrysler, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Electric, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Jeff Immelt, judge andrew napolitano, MSNBC, NBC, Obama Comments Off
Did you know that GE was secretly bailed out along with everyone else? GE is the parent company of NBC and GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt, sits on Obama’s board of economic advisors? Hmmm? This article is from a fellow blogger on WordPress Scotty Starnes’s Blog , give him a visit, his blog is loaded with some good info as well.
FED SECRETLY BAILED OUT GE — GE NEWS OUTLETS FAILED TO REVEAL IN FED COVERAGE
Now why wouldn’t MSNBC report that their parent company, GE, received a taxpayer-funded bailout? Does anyone else see a conflict of interest since GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt, sits on Obama’s board of economic advisors? I’m sure its all a coinky-dink that MSNBC pushes Obama’s agenda on its network.
From the Washington Post:
The financial crisis stretched even farther across the economy than many had realized, as new disclosures show the Federal Reserve rushed trillions of dollars in emergency aid not just to Wall Street but also to motorcycle makers, telecom firms and foreign-owned banks in 2008 and 2009.
The Fed’s efforts to prop up the financial sector reached across a broad spectrum of the economy, benefiting stalwarts of American industry including General Electric and Caterpillar and household-name companies such as Verizon, Harley-Davidson and Toyota. The central bank’s aid programs also supported U.S. subsidiaries of banks based in East Asia, Europe and Canada while rescuing money-market mutual funds held by millions of Americans.
What did the taxpayers receive? Nothing but the bill for our government to bail out everyone but us.
The biggest users of the Fed lending programs were some of the world’s largest banks, including Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Swiss-based UBS and Britain’s Barclays, according to more than 21,000 loan records released Wednesday under new financial regulatory legislation.
The data reveal banks turning to the Fed for help almost daily in the fall of 2008 as the central bank lowered lending standards and extended relief to all kinds of institutions it had never assisted before.
Fed officials emphasize that their actions were meant to stabilize a financial system that was on the verge of collapse in late 2008. They note that the actions worked to prevent a complete financial meltdown and that none of the special lending programs has lost money. (Some have recorded healthy profits for taxpayers.)
If this is true, where is our check?
But the extent of the lending to major banks – and the generous terms of some of those deals – heighten the political peril for a central bank that is already under the gun for a wide range of actions, including a recent decision to try to stimulate the economy by buying $600 billion in U.S. bonds.
The Federal Reserve is buying debt even after Fed Chair Ben Bernanke testified before Congress that this wouldn’t happen. What happens when you testify and lie? Ask Bill Clinton.
“The American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed’s multitrillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America,” said Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime Fed critic whose provision in the Wall Street regulatory overhaul required the new disclosures. “Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions.”
The Fed launched emergency programs totaling $3.3 trillion in aid, a figure reached by adding up the peak amount of lending in each program.
Add another $2.3 trillion to that figure because the Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” scheme.
U.S. Congressional leaders agree on financial reform bill giving feds power to seize private companies
June 26, 2010
Although there are some good points about this bill as Steve has already posted relative to the oil speculators which need to be reigned in, I’m afraid this bill may not be completely what it appears to be on the surface, but instead is possibly another government takeover of the financial system and will determine who succeeds and who fails based not on Congress, but unelected bureaucratic appointees. When we people learn these recent “crisis” have been caused by the government, then the government moves in and says we’ll be your ‘savior’, take over and make everything ok.
“It’s a great moment. I’m proud to have been here,” said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee led the effort in the Senate. “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.” (Now where have we heard this before? Nancy …”you won’t know what’s in it until it’s passed.”…Pelosi….that’s where.)
Financial Reform Is a Disaster For Banks, Consumers
Calling the proposal “The Anti-American Finance Act,” Bove paints a grim picture of its consequences: Millions of consumers losing their bank accounts; costly and needless bureaucracy; an onerous restriction of money growth; and reduced US competitiveness in the global financial system.
“The Congress has created legislation to solve problems that may not exist and has not created legislation to deal with real problems,” Bove, of Rochdale Securities, said in a note to clients. “The consequences will be quite negative. The bill is so bad that it is certain to be reversed in subsequent Congressional sessions.”
While the proposals have yet to take final form, the legislation calls for more stringent regulation on risk-taking and capital requirements and establishes consumer protection in ways that Bove calls actually counterproductive.
But Bove said lawmakers and policy chiefs have overreacted to the crisis and come up with a set of laws that will ultimately harm the system, the economy and consumers.
“There is no doubt in my mind that in two years, the Congress and regulators will be scrambling to figure out how to undo what they have done with this legislation,” he wrote. “Banks need to lend, so money supply can grow. Forcing bank balance sheets to shrink does nothing to aid the United States economy.”
Higher capital requirements will shrink the money supply, which in turn will trigger deflation, lower incomes, unemployment and a contracting economy, he said.
“No one who is mandating higher capital in banks is considering this,” he said. “In fact, the policymakers are united in their view that the global banking industry needs more capital. It is more likely that the taxpayer is buying a new structure that will be as unworkable as the old one,” he wrote.
As for consumers, price controls and increased regulation will force banks to charge fees for routine services, which will be cut as well.
“Millions of people will lose their bank accounts,” Bove said. “The cost of banking will go up for everyone as the banks apply monthly maintenance fees to all of their customers. Credit availability will be reduced and credit, which is available, will cost more to everyone.”
The only winners in a newly-reformed financial system may be the banks themselves, Bove told CNBC late Monday.
“They’ll get their money,” he said. “It may be a lag of six to 12 months, but they’ll get the money back that they lose as a result of this bill.”
For investors, this means limiting exposure to banks that are largely consumer-oriented. Better bets, Bove said, are the institutions serving the “commercial customer,” like Comerica.
“Those banks look extraordinarily good at the present time,” Bove said.