Pelosi, Schiff pan director of national intelligence for canceling election security briefings

[BigmanPigman]

Source: The Hill

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, panned the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) on Saturday for canceling all election security briefings for Congress."

"The two Democrats said the ODNI canceled briefings scheduled for September on foreign election interference and informed them it will hold no others, likely infuriating lawmakers who have pushed the Trump administration to be more transparent about intelligence regarding threats to the November elections."

“This is a shocking abdication of its lawful responsibility to keep the Congress currently informed, and a betrayal of the public’s right to know how foreign powers are trying to subvert our democracy,” Pelosi and Schiff said in a joint statement. “This intelligence belongs to the American people, not the agencies which are its custodian. And the American people have both the right and the need to know that another nation, Russia, is trying to help decide who their president should be.”

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/514280-pelosi-schiff-pan-director-of-national-intelligence-for-cancelling-election

[Champion Jack]

1. They better do more than complain about it & write angry letters

[area51]

9. +1 n/t

[Karma13612]

10. I'll see your +1 and raise you a 1000

This is just one more nail in the coffin of democracy.

[ancianita]

2. Panning? They'd better do more than that. Like hit the courts.

[ehrnst]

15. How many hours has it been since this was announced?

How many courts should they have "hit" in that amount of time?

Why don't you give them a day or two to fail as you anticipate them doing?

[ancianita]

18. I hear you. Fair point.

Let me know when they do what you imply they will.

[ehrnst]

21. What did I imply they will do?

Maybe you're confusing me with someone else you're talking with? Or someone else in this thread?

[ancianita]

22. Something. That they'll do something if given time.

I simply said they'd better do more. I didn't imply when. You implied that I haven't given them time.
Maybe you're the confused one here about who you're using the disingenuous prosecutorial tone. Take it up with The Hill.

[ehrnst]

25. So, it was just attacking a strawman, and I didn't imply what they would do.

Got it.

I'm not the one who got taken in and set off by a headline in The Hill.

BTW... which court should they "hit" and with what exactly, since you seem to have a very clear idea on what they're not going to be doing?

[LenaBaby61]

3. Let me not say one thing ...

Because my post will be hidden or reported 😴

[AZ8theist]

7. I hear your thoughts. The anger percolating up in me is the same......

[demosincebirth]

4. Then do something for Christ's sake!

[ehrnst]

16. It's been less than 48 hours, over a weekend, since this was announced.

What is it you expect them to have done in that amount of time, other than take to the media immediately and letting the public know the implications?

Appealed it to SCOTUS?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. Kick

[AZ8theist]

6. Subpoena the fascist....

And if he refuses, use inherent contempt to jail his ass until he complies.

At this point, it's the only tool left that will have any affect. It's all Dotards traitors will understand.
They should have done that to Barr A LONG TIME AGO.

[Malmsy]

12. You do understand that Barr will be the one who enforces non-compliance, right?

[AZ8theist]

14. Only initially. He has so far

refused all oversight attempts. However, under the constitution, both houses of congress can employ the Capital police to detain any individual to compell them to respond to the subpoena. Rarely used, it is still in effect. Barr himself could be arrested under inherent contempt. It just takes the will of congress.

[ehrnst]

17. So you think the reason it hasn't already been done is that Congress "doesn't have the will."

You don't think that there are any other obstacles or considerations?

Madame Speaker certainly isn't known for being a shrinking violet....

[AZ8theist]

23. Yup.

Bringing a butter knife to a gun fight. Inherent contempt was last used in something like 1927. There is not the political will today to bring these fascists to justice and compliance with oversight. I have the utmost respect and admiration for Pelosi, but she is a political animal. Remember taking impeachment "off the table" during Bushes' war crimes? They are making a calculation that November 3rd will be our savior. I think it may be too late by then......

[ehrnst]

24. Why is it that you think they are "standing down" when "they could" be stopping him?

And just refusing to his cronies in jail, when they totally "could be" right now?

[AZ8theist]

32. I'm sorry, are we in the same reality?

Are you unaware of the multitude of subpoenas that have been IGNORED by the Trump TREASON Admin?
Are you unaware of the TOTAL number of requests for documents by LEGITIMATE HOUSE OVERSIGHT committees that Doturd has thumbed his nose at????

I'm sorry, are your trolling me at this point?

[Malmsy]

33. Trolling?

Look in a mirror.

Geeze.

[llashram]

8. it just seems like this admin

can just steamroll our legislators, even the House where we control the purse strings and have the majority. Trump and his cronies are just sticking up their middle finger with a big F*** Y**. I'm no Constitutional scholar there has to be some legislative remedy to balance out these blatant attacks by the fascists. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE, NOW! They are drawing blood, metaphorically speaking. We need to respond in kind.

[ehrnst]

19. That's correct, you're not a constitutional scholar, nor are you an expert in procedure

But still you are declaring that "there has to be some legislative remedy" and our Democratic Congress is simply refusing to do it.



Why do you assume that Congressional leaders are less knowledgeable than you are about what can and can't be done legislatively? Are you also aware that Mitch McConnell, who is not a Democrat, determines what is and is not going to be done by the Senate?

Yes, we are all angry, but scapegoating and eating our own because "there MUST be SOMETHING that's NOT BEING DONE THAT COULD BE and they BETTER!!" is counter productive.

There is no "manager" to demand to see in this situation. Elections have consequences, and we have seen just how far this administration will push any and every boundary.

So, by "responding in kind," are you expecting Speaker Pelosi to stick up a middle finger with a big a big F*** Y**?

Just clarifying.

[llashram]

26. your analysis of my appeal and search for clarity

misses the point that I have hopes, really, that we are on the case. How I perceive the current situations developing in this country is no reason for you to go all snarky. Like others here I am worried. Your opinions are yours. And as of this response, they carry very little weight with me. You are in no position to try and school me. EVER. You adding your words to my response tells me everything I need to know about your ways to impart advice. No thank you.

I would never in these times "eat my own" nor try to be counterproductive. The House controls the purse strings, that's all I need to know. I'm expecting that we will handle things and the consequence(s) shall be known in November and on Jan 20th.

I know the "manager", therefore I don't have to ask to see one. You can go and try to offer your remarks to someone who might take a browbeating for no reason except you feel you need to try to school them in as mean a possible way as you can muster, so as far as I'm concerned, thanks but a BIG no thanks. Peace and try to stay well.

[ehrnst]

27. So, no answers, just complaining that someone else isn't coming up with the answers

you expect (that have to do with "purse strings" but no specifics), because you're angry, and want to see something right NOW.

I didn't offer "opinions" I simply asked you to clarify what Dems could be doing legislatively, that you believe they are refusing to do.

But, Ok. Peace and try to stay well.

[llashram]

28. Please

just leave me alone. I don't need anything from you in any capacity. And I need no advice to stay well, I am observing all medical protocols.

[ehrnst]

29. "Peace and try to stay well." I was simply wishing you what you wished me.

And if you don't want to engage, you are free to not respond. This is a discussion board, if you post on a thread, expect responses from anyone who is eligible to post. That's what a discussion board is about.

There is the ignore feature if that will give you the peace you seek.

Peace and try to stay well.

[llashram]

30. ---

[ehrnst]

31. ----

Peace and try to stay well.

[EarthFirst]

13. Perhaps it's time Pelosi sits down to formulate a plan with OSCE...

Never thought we’d ever need international election observers in the United States; but here we are...

[ehrnst]

20. That would be quite a task - each state, not Congress, has control over elections

And you know that Red States are not going cooperate with international observers in any way, shape or form.

There are volunteer legal election observers who do mobilize in areas where polling places might be dirty dealing, but again, that's on a region by region basis.