Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,678 posts)
7. Sorry.. no.
Fri Jan 31, 2014, 02:55 PM
Jan 2014

When an executive branch is currently investigating something (or in deliberation on a decision, etc)... separation of power is supposed to keep political influences from tainting the decisions. This has been adjudicated in the past.

Take a parallel example that's clearer (if oversimplified). Tea party types feel that the president used the IRS in a political manner... "targeting" RW groups. Congress has oversight authority and Republicans control the House - so, like a prosecutor, the republican chairman of the relevant committee demands that the IRS turn over everything that could possibly give them something to work with to attach the president... but the executive branch is currently investigating what happened.

What ability does the IRS have to withhold "internal deliberations" or "deliberative communications" regarding how decisions were made?

The answer is "quite a bit". Particularly absent a subpoena... though in some cases even with one.

Oversight, of course, is sometimes used for political purposes. Most of the investigation into Benghazi and Fast and Furious were partisan political witch hunts.

Exactly. But it isn't just partisan influence... sometimes it's personal preferences and pet projects of a specific senator. If, for instance, the majority of the committee agreed with Boxer... they could just issue a subpoena. Why is it just her blustering?

A Legislative branch that is jealous of its power and fights to protect it is required to keep a government that consists of three, coequal branches functioning.

Yup. And the same thing goes for the executive. You should read Macfarlane's most recent response to Boxer. You're closer to agreeing with her on the principals involved than you think (certainly closer than to Boxer's)... you just agree on the specific issue that you would like the SONGS issues exposed more rapidly. That's not relevant to the principals involved.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/congress-docs/correspondence/2013/boxer-12-23-2013.pdf

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Senator (Boxer) Threatens...»Reply #7