Oh Shit... Apparently The Constitutional Law Professor Turned President... Is Now Just A Politician

[WillyT]

Obama: White House won't wade into CIA torture report dispute at this point
White House distances itself from fierce dispute between top senators and CIA over report into use of torture in post-9/11 interrogations
Paul Lewis in Washington - theguardian.com
Wednesday 12 March 2014 18.33 EDT


Obama’s remarks are likely to anger Democratic senators on the committee, who have been publicly calling on the president to get involved in the controversy. Photo: Larry Downing /Reuters

Barack Obama sought to distance the White House from the fierce dispute between top senators and the Central Intelligence Agency on Wednesday, claiming it would be inappropriate for his administration to become involved the clash over an investigation into the use of torture in post-9/11 interrogations.

In the president’s first remarks about the dispute since Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence accused the CIA of a cover-up and intimidation directed at her staff, Obama said it was not a matter for the White House to “wade into at this point”.

Obama’s remarks are likely to anger Democratic senators on the committee, who have been publicly calling on the president to get involved in the controversy, which has been characterised by bad feeling on both sides.

And...

Amid the lurid allegations, the White House has been seeking to play down the crisis. Earlier on Wednesday, the White House’s press secretary, Jay Carney, characterised the unprecedented clash between the CIA and the Senate as an issue relating to “occasional disputes over protocol”.

And...

On Wednesday, Carney revealed that the CIA’s top lawyer, who filed an official criminal complaint about Senate aides to the Justice Department, informed White House attorneys in advance. Carney described the notification as “a heads-up” and said the White House did not intervene. “There was no comment, there was no weighing in, there was no judgment,” he said.

The whole thing: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/12/obama-feinstein-cia-dispute-distance

[MindMover]

1. Go offense, when you know you are on the ropes ...

[Scuba]

2. Smart and correct, under the circumstances. I would only disagree ...

... with the statement that it would be "inappropriate for his administration to become involved." They're already involved in that CIA works for the Executive.

That said, President Obama should let the Senate do their job. I find it highly unlikely that the White House ordered the CIA to remove the documents in question, and anything the President does merely adds the perception of interference or coverup.

I hope the Senate takes this seriously. In my humble opinion it is a major Constitutional crime.

[WillyT]

4. Yet That IS The Question... Is The Executive... Interfering With Congressional Oversight ???

[Autumn]

14. Now Willy, that little oath to "preserve, maintain, and defend the Constitution"

was a super chess move.

[ProSense]

18. It's interesting that the most sought-after documents on torture,

ones the CIA is desperate to keep from the public, were created/turned over by Leon Panetta.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024654245

[woo me with science]

3. Not just refusing to get involved.

Actively shielding the CIA from Senate torture investigation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024653838

Good fucking god.

[WillyT]

5. Yep... Thank You For That...

[ProSense]

6. The WH

Obama’s remarks are likely to anger Democratic senators on the committee, who have been publicly calling on the president to get involved in the controversy, which has been characterised by bad feeling on both sides.

...should not get involved in the "controversy." That would be idiotic. Also, the claim that Senators are demanding this is inaccurate. Senators have asked the President to reiterate strond support for declassification of the documents.

The author cites Feinstein's speech to make a couple of bogus claims. Here is what she said:

I also want to reiterate to my colleagues my desire to have all updates to the committee report completed this month and approved for declassification. We’re not going to stop. I intend to move to have the findings, conclusions and the executive summary of the report sent to the president for declassification and release to the American people. The White House has indicated publicly and to me personally that it supports declassification and release.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/11/dianne-feinstein-cia-senate-statement-full-text

[JaneyVee]

21. Don't bother. Misery loves company. Just start an ignore flame-bait trend.

Unless dealing with those types is your thing.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. You do realize that just because somebody "studies" X, Y, or Z does NOT necessarily follow that s/he

actually supports X, Y, or Z, right?!?!

[Lucky Luciano]

9. Indeed - much like Exxon's environmental lawyers.

They studied the daylights out of environmental law, but clearly do not support the concept of environmental law (well maybe they do to a degree as it provides them with an expertise from which to draw a good income).

[treestar]

27. Law is not defined by "the rules are that things should be as I think they should"

Exxon lawyers may indeed know a lot about environmental law, far more than you do. A legal question can be argued from both sides. In fact, it would not really be all that fair if only one side of it could argue, wouldn't that be?

If I am against murder no one should defend a murder case, right? I don't support killing other people. So awful there are lawyers willing to argue that some cases are not murder under the facts or the law.

[Lucky Luciano]

33. Someone has to defend them yes - the amoral need jobs too. nt

[treestar]

34. Why not join the tea party

I mean, your moral view is absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees is "amoral."

[Lucky Luciano]

41. Duly Noted.

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 05:29 PM - Edit history (1)

[treestar]

26. Someone who has never studied Z

Usually doesn't know anything about Z.

[DJ13]

8. Translation

"They've got shit on me too"...?

[pa28]

45. That would explain so many things. So so many.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. Don't you know Obama wants Dubya to be his bud?

[Doctor_J]

11. I figured that out during the health insurance, er, health care debacle, er, debate

thanks though

[Demeter]

12. Not even close to a politician, I'm afraid

"Slacker" is the only printable term that comes to mind.

[geek tragedy]

29. Oh look, the "Obama is a lazy Negro" talking point from

a certain element that people insist doesn't exist on this website.

https://www.google.com/#q=slacker+definition

a person who avoids work or effort.
synonyms: layabout, idler, shirker, malingerer, sluggard, laggard; More
informallazybones, bum, goof-off
"all right, you slackers, let's get this cargo across the river before the sun sets"

a person who evades military service.
a young person (esp. in the 1990s) of a subculture character

Why, the people who use that kind of racist codespeak also call for him to be impeached and views him as threatening to destroy America.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=320106

IMPEACH NOW!

This goes so far beyond the limit that it cannot stand.

Impeach, or kiss America goodbye.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7127032&mesg_id=7127101

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4886453

[cali]

43. As I have said before, we disagree on much

and I've been called a racist on DU for criticizing the President's policies, but I agree, I think this is, if not outright racist, damn close to the line.

Whatever else he is, President Obama couldn't honestly be characterized as a "slacker".

[geek tragedy]

44. you are obviously not a racist, really sad that some people

would accuse you of that. and, yes, we do disagree a lot

cheers

[wildbilln864]

13. and k & r! n/t

[n2doc]

15. The Senate can't really hurt Obama, short of Impeachment

But I'll bet the CIA can. 1963 and all that.

[Kablooie]

16. Well, we wanted change didn't we?

Perhaps we were remiss in not defining what the change was we wanted.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Then I feel for him, because DiFi is a better politician. I disagree with her

on many things but this is the sort of thing that you keep a Diane around for, this is why you vote for her anyway, she's so very much not to be trifled with, she holds her anger like a coiled spring until the right moment. Fuck with Feinstein at your own risk, oh ye who only recently got to town, letterhead notwithstanding.

[BlueCaliDem]

19. Willy? You really, really, REALLY don't like the Obama Administration, do you?

Just about every single one of your posts is an attack on this Administration. Hm. I wonder why.

By the way? There IS a group of people who share your dislike for this Administration. They're called Republicans.

Have fun with your sowing. But know that you're not fooling anyone with more than half a working brain.

[WillyT]

22. I Don't Support Politicians... I Support My Country & The Constitution... Trying Hard To 'Keep It'

If there is a lesson in all of this it is that our Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.

From: http://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/historical-documents/perspectives-on-the-constitution-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it



How's your health?

[BlueCaliDem]

23. You know what?

It's strange, but that's exactly what Republicans who hide behind "I'm in Independent!" and who claim, "I don't belong to any Party" tell me on other sites.

Fancy that.

My health? Pretty good. I'm a Democrat on a Democratic Party supporting site. But thanks for asking.

Question: are you a Democrat? A simple yes or no with suffice. Thanks!

[WillyT]

28. Voted Democrat Every Time Since Jerry Brown For CA Governor In 1974... You ???

And... How often do you visit... "other sites" ?

[BlueCaliDem]

32. Okay.

And... How often do you visit... "other sites" ?

At least three times a day. More on weekends. And to be honest? I read much less flack against President Obama on the other sites than I do on DU. And that's just sad.

By the way? Gov. Jerry Brown is far more conservative in his policies than President Obama. FAR. MORE. But he was still better than Meg Whitman.

[Demeter]

38. BECAUSE

Obama is doing exactly what they want. He's playing on the wrong team.

[BlueCaliDem]

39. That's your opinion. That's not a fact.

I know it's what some people say about this president, but I also know the real reason why, and it has little to do with his policies. No one's fooled.

When the vast majority of Democrats stand behind him and approve of him, the only whiners against President Obama are pro-Republican, Liberaltarians or Republitarians. And thank god they're in the minority!

[jsr]

20. The president should stay above petty quarrels outside his branch of government

[treestar]

24. He is the President at this time.

Not a constitutional law professor.

However, it is odd that many untrained in the law consider themselves to be his equal when it comes to interpretation of constitutional law. They seem to think they can grade him without even having taken his class.

Constitutional Law is not "just what sounds knee jerk right to me, a layperson with no law degree."

Further the Senate is not the Executive branch and the whole idea was each branch would fight for its own power, so power would not be concentrated.

[dionysus]

25. oh noes. BBI was better at this than you. nt

[ReRe]

30. So, the truth won't set us free...

... afterall?

[geek tragedy]

31. Obama is a politician? Why, I thought angels just carried him into the Oval Office on a moonbeam.

I never realized he was one of those people who said stuff to get people to vote for him.

[MindMover]

35. Does anyone here really think you are going to see something that will incriminate the USA or

anyone in the CIA coming from this government. If you do, you really are dreamers ...

[woo me with science]

37. Not without a strong wild card in the mix to force some people to start ratting out others

to protect themselves,...and that wildcard could be a leaker.

The Christian Science Monitor is already raising the possibility that the committee could have received the Panetta/CIA internal review through the actions of someone internal who wanted to make sure they saw it against the wishes of the CIA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024655234#post1

The CIA's internal report apparently flatly contradicts what the CIA has been telling Congress about the torture program all along.

[KoKo]

40. DiFi did say possibility of a Whistle Blower adding and removing documents

in her address..

Quote:

Further, we don’t know whether the documents were provided intentionally by the CIA, unintentionally by the CIA, or intentionally by a whistle-blower."

AND...

On another thread or maybe the same thread she said that the torture was worse than the cables released by Panetta Report. Since the CIA destroyed the photographs how would she know that the torture was worse than the "cables" revealed if she or her staff had not maybe see photographs. I wonder if someone saved those photos somehow and inserted them in the documents her staffers saw. When she also said documents were removed and replaced...my thought was that might be the photos that a whilstleblower manage to save. That's just speculation but, that she stated it in her Senate Statement about how the torture was so much worse...I wondered how she would know.

[Catherina]

36. “occasional disputes over protocol”? I don;t think the Congress is going to take very kindly

I don;t think the Congress is going to take very kindly to that or to "the CIA’s top lawyer, who filed an official criminal complaint about Senate aides to the Justice Department, informed White House attorneys in advance. Carney described the notification as “a heads-up” and said the White House did not intervene."

Where's Shakespeare to write a play about this when you need him?

[bananas]

42. "Obama's remarks are likely to anger Democratic senators on the committee"

Obama’s remarks are likely to anger Democratic senators on the committee, who have been publicly calling on the president to get involved in the controversy, which has been characterised by bad feeling on both sides.