Senate Intelligence Panel Makes Plea to Strip 'Troublesome' Spying Measure From Spending Bill - Polidicks

[media]https://twitter.com/ByronTau/status/955522764324179968[/media] [quote]As Congress moves towards a final vote on the bill to reopen the government, the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee came to the Senate floor on Monday afternoon to make a last ditch effort to strip a provision from the spending bill that they say impacts Congress's ability to properly supervise intelligence agencies. The House version of the spending bill released last week contained a provision that allows the Trump administration to spend funds on intelligence activities that were not specifically authorized by Congress — sidestepping a longstanding law that requires congressional notification and authorization of such spending and activity.[/quote] [quote]"If this exemption is granted, you could potentially have an administration — any administration — go off and take on covert activities, for example, with no ability for our committee, which spends the time and has oversight, to say 'time out,' or to say we actually disagree with that policy," Mr. Warner said. "So I've been very disturbed about the whole process."[/quote] [quote]House appropriators said the provision was added at the request of the Trump administration.[/quote] Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

...Ban Congress.

It passed btw, but they say they'll undo it in the [I]next[/I] spending deal [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/u-s-spending-deal-may-threaten-intelligence-spending-oversight[/url] [quote]But Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn assured lawmakers later on Monday that the wording flagged by Burr and others will be fixed on Feb. 8, when yet another, new spending bill will come due. [/quote]

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53072984]It passed btw, but they say they'll undo it in the [I]next[/I] spending deal [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/u-s-spending-deal-may-threaten-intelligence-spending-oversight[/url][/QUOTE] Wow yes I totally trust them to undo it sure thing buddy mmmmmhmmmm

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;53073032]Wow yes I totally trust them to undo it sure thing buddy mmmmmhmmmm[/QUOTE] I mean, why wouldn't they remove it? Why could congress make it easier for the potus to bypass congress? I mean I doubt many gop senators are both trump loyalists and don't have the foresight to prevent dem presidents from taking advantage of this.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53073042]I mean, why wouldn't they remove it? Why could congress make it easier for the potus to bypass congress? I mean I doubt many gop senators are both trump loyalists and don't have the foresight to prevent dem presidents from taking advantage of this.[/QUOTE] You're making two pretty big assumptions there, and recent congress actions and statements contradict you. See: Government shutdown for one.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;53073045]You're making two pretty big assumptions there, and recent congress actions and statements contradict you. See: Government shutdown for one.[/QUOTE] Yeah they have no idea how think ahead but I believe very few gop senators like trump, at best he's a useful idiot to them.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53073042]I mean, why wouldn't they remove it? Why could congress make it easier for the potus to bypass congress? I mean I doubt many gop senators are both trump loyalists and don't have the foresight to prevent dem presidents from taking advantage of this.[/QUOTE] I said this before and I'll say it again: Republicans changed the rules to nominate a Supreme Court Justice despite knowing that it could be used against them in the future. They're not adverse to short-term "wins".

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;53073091]I said this before and I'll say it again: Republicans changed the rules to nominate a Supreme Court Justice despite knowing that it could be used against them in the future. They're not adverse to short-term "wins".[/QUOTE] You know democrats did the same thing for lower judges and executive nominees before them, right? The GOP took it a step further, and I'm sure whoever is in charge next will go even further.

And I thought I couldn't get more disappointed in the dems for compromising here. Handing more power to the would-be dictator isn't a mistake at best.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53073099]You know democrats did the same thing for lower judges and executive nominees before them, right? The GOP took it a step further, and I'm sure whoever is in charge next will go even further.[/QUOTE] Which is kinda the problem of stepping it up so much for short term gains. And the fact that it was added in by the most incompetent, corrupt and possibly treasonous administration in US history, it is dubious at best in any case. Never mind that this isn't about whether judges are conservative or not, but a free pass for covert ops by said administration. If that doesn't set off any alarm bells in your head, there really isn't much to say.

The thing is you would expect even a unified government to reject this. This just shows how weak the GOP and, for as long they control it, Congress is [editline]23rd January 2018[/editline] If the Obama admin had asked the Dem congress to do this, you can bet they'd have said fuck off

In other words, the office of the Presidency just got even more overpowered? Am I understanding this correctly?

[QUOTE=sgman91;53073099]You know democrats did the same thing for lower judges and executive nominees before them, right? The GOP took it a step further, and I'm sure whoever is in charge next will go even further.[/QUOTE] No, I did not know that. Can you provide sources for that?

So they want the ability to take covert action that effectively nobody is responsible for? That's the kind of power that we call tyranny. Anyone who supports this is brazenly anti-American. This is the kind of power that leads to spying on and eventually action against political opponents. That is not a road I want to see our country go down.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;53073394]No, I did not know that. Can you provide sources for that?[/QUOTE] "The nuclear option has only been used in practice twice. In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans used the nuclear option to eliminate the exception for Supreme Court nominees" ([URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option[/URL]) The democrats established the practice, and the republicans took it one step further. [editline]22nd January 2018[/editline] When the democrats did it the republicans were saying, "Oh, you shouldn't do that because people who you don't agree with will do the same thing later," and now that republicans are doing it the democrats are saying that. It's actually a little funny. In my opinion, neither of them should have done it, but once one party has shown that it's a option, then it needs to be on the table for everyone.

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53072984]It passed btw, but they say they'll undo it in the [I]next[/I] spending deal [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/u-s-spending-deal-may-threaten-intelligence-spending-oversight[/url][/QUOTE] Hey guys we put a bomb in the middle of your town. Obviously we're going to disarm it before it goes off, so what's the harm in putting it there, right?

[QUOTE=sgman91;53073885]"The nuclear option has only been used in practice twice. In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans used the nuclear option to eliminate the exception for Supreme Court nominees" ([URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option[/URL]) The democrats established the practice, and the republicans took it one step further. [editline]22nd January 2018[/editline] When the democrats did it the republicans were saying, "Oh, you shouldn't do that because people who you don't agree with will do the same thing later," and now that republicans are doing it the democrats are saying that. It's actually a little funny. In my opinion, neither of them should have done it, but once one party has shown that it's a option, then it needs to be on the table for everyone.[/QUOTE] It's kind of funny to read the context though. Democrats use the nuclear option to get around the 60 vote rule for executive branch and federal judicial appointments, later on Republicans obstruct Obama from filling the Supreme Court position with Merrick Garland, then use the nuclear option themselves to eliminate the rule that allowed them to do it and get Neil Gorsuch appointed. It was only deployed by the Democrats in the face of unprecedented Congressional gridlock then used by the Republicans because they knew Democrats weren't going to make their Supreme Court nomination easy, and for good reason.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53074990]It's kind of funny to read the context though. Democrats use the nuclear option to get around the 60 vote rule for executive branch and federal judicial appointments, later on Republicans obstruct Obama from filling the Supreme Court position with Merrick Garland, then use the nuclear option themselves to eliminate the rule that allowed them to do it and get Neil Gorsuch appointed. It was only deployed by the Democrats in the face of unprecedented Congressional gridlock then used by the Republicans because they knew Democrats weren't going to make their Supreme Court nomination easy, and for good reason.[/QUOTE] Why is one "congressional gridlock" and the other is "democrats not making it easy?" Both sides wanted to block the other. So the side with the majority changed the rules so that they could get what they wanted.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53075082]Why is one "congressional gridlock" and the other is "democrats not making it easy?" Both sides wanted to block the other. So the side with the majority changed the rules so that they could get what they wanted.[/QUOTE] I didn't say "Democrats not making it easy" I said "Democrat's weren't going to make it easy" because the Republicans immediately used the nuclear option to force him through, where as Merrick Garlands nomination was the longest in history. You can pretend like they are the same thing but anyone reading your wikipedia link will see how drastically the two instances differed.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53075096]I didn't say "Democrats not making it easy" I said "Democrat's weren't going to make it easy" because the Republicans immediately used the nuclear option to force him through, where as Merrick Garlands nomination was the longest in history. You can pretend like they are the same thing but anyone reading your wikipedia link will see how drastically the two instances differed.[/QUOTE] I mean, the democrats had already said that they were going to block the nomination, and had enough votes to do so. ([URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-panel-prepares-to-consider-gorsuch-as-threat-of-filibuster-looms/2017/04/03/129bcd8c-186a-11e7-bcc2-7d1a0973e7b2_story.html?utm_term=.5b1e3e64d43c[/URL]) Would you have rather the republicans do the vote that everyone already knew was going to get blocked, and then do the rule change? That seems pedantic.