Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Day Four – The Fourth Branch of Government, The Intelligence Branch 33

Journal by smittyoneeach
One
Two
Three

Aside: VBS was last week. Hard to do the cloud gig by day, ~3hrs of trying to point out what matters in life to the teens, and still have anything left for social media.

For this installment, Sundance instructs on the Gang of 8, which is "over" in a sense, the SSCI, and how it kinda doesn't seem to have a lot of teeth where his "fourth branch" is concerned:

Former FBI Director James Comey openly admitted to Congress on March 20, 2017, that the FBI, FBI Counterintelligence Division, DOJ and DOJ-National Security Division, together with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA, had been conducting independent investigations of Donald Trump for over a year without informing the Go8. Comey justified the lack of informing Go8 oversight by saying "because of the sensitivity of the matter."

This is, Sundance maintains, an en passant admission that the idea of the Congress (Go8/SSCI) holding the Executive branch accountable has been usurped. His further point of the series, that the intelligence community isn't accountable to Executive branch, either, hasn't been fully developed.

He ends by pointing out that Pelosi and McConnell have both been in the Go8 for a very long time.

One of the problems with this sort of analysis is that it is limited to externally visible information. This is why hearings and correspondence are important. They establish some amount of evidence. However, it is specious to think there isn't copious out-of-band-signaling between stakeholders.

Thus, while Comey may not have officially notified Congress, that is not the same as saying Congress lacked knowledge.

Which is by no means a defense of that supercilious piece of work, or a refutation of the thesis that our Intel Community is running amok and is tantamount to its own branch of government.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Day Four – The Fourth Branch of Government, The Intelligence Branch More

Day Four – The Fourth Branch of Government, The Intelligence Branch

Comments Filter:

  • Since the 40s.. That Steven Seagal movie has 'em pegged, huh? And yes, I am amused by the people that hated them for decades suddenly changing their tune after Clinton's loss.

    Markets are up, nothing to worry about

    • There is a real discussion to have. Governments have to do the full ['naughty'...'nice'] spectrum. It's naive to think that governments are going to behave like evangelical missionaries all of the time.

      So how is the corruption to be minimized?

      The only practical things I can think of are to minimize the amount of cloak-and-dagger and rotate the people running these plays more frequently.

      • So how is the corruption to be minimized?

        Stop reelecting the corrupt. Everything about the government is a reflection of voter intent. You have to start there.

        • I don't think that's enough. The context of our Administrative State seems to have diminished the value of elections. By the time anyone has the seniority to affect legislation, the system seems to have devoured them.

          • Everything is in the hands of the voters. Until they make the effort, their power is unknown.

            • Is it? How confident are you in the election system, after last year's shenanigans?

              • 98% voted for the ruling party. What "shenanigans" are you talking about? What was different about last year?

                • You can argue that the Biden Administration is the same kind of shenanigans as usual, that's hard to refute.

                  But look at his CNN Town Hall and tell me with a straight face that he won more votes than anyone ever, to include BHO.

                  The degree of shenanigans is off the charts.

                  Time for reform.

                  • CNN? Please... They're the other FOX. Also, you know I won't sit through videos, he is unwatchable, so is the other guy. Yeah, it does take fraud to put those two, out of the more than a hundred million eligible candidates, on top of the ballot.

                    Whatever, according to the count he won more votes than the republican. You gotta show evidence of otherwise.

                    You are watching, and re-transmitting a rerun. Nothing new at all.

                    Yes, time for reform. Vote out the incumbent Party. Failing to do that makes all your compla

                    • Sure Biden is unwatchable, and I'm not a fan of Donald Trump's stand-up act, either.

                      But one of them is reasonably healthy had has the brains/stamina to do an hour+ without batting an eye.

                    • Makes no difference. They are frauds, working for the same people. Why would you support either? Look outside your box.

                    • I'm not in complete disagreement with you. If we're calling 2020 dodgy, then we need to take the same harsh look at 2016 and inquire whether Trump was more of a bait-and-switch on Hillary from the "same people" cabal than it was a grassroots triumph for Donald.

                      They say that DC is Hollywood for ugly people, and the last five years have been nothing if not a really tedious flick. That is, if the "same people" are giving us a reality show in lieu of a government.

                      Too, if Donald were to veer too off the rese

                    • In summary, it's all a giant farce. I think it's likely that Trump is the Robin Hood figure he supposedly cuts..

                      :-) Good one!

                    • That's certainly the brand. And, if you do any biographical research, there may be some basis. Or not. I really don't enjoy hearing his speak, but find him ambiguous. You, of course, may have crystal clarity and know more.

                    • That's certainly the brand.

                      :-) Hardly! He's the same fraud we saw in the 80s

                    • Is he? What is your source of certainty here? Genuine question. Given the level of hatred, literal years and millions spent going over his booty with a fine-tooth comb and a magnet, how was he not strung up a thousand ways by the system? Or do you find that to be evidence of some Super-Q conspiracy?

                    • What is your source of certainty here?

                      Court records, going back to 1973

                      First Cruz, then this guy... why do you support such horrible frauds? This is so weird

                      Oh well, count your blessings, the dems are handing it all back to you in their catatonic way

                    • What. Court. Records?

                      If Trump is a legal crap cabaret, then why didn't they bury him in 2016, so that Her Majesty could reign?

                      How is it that going over Trump's booty the entire time he was in office yielded. . .bupkis?

                      Not to go accusing Trump of sainthood, but do you have anything more than innuendo? Anything?

                    • What. Court. Records?

                      Convenient One Stop Shopping [wikipedia.org]

                      If Trump is a legal crap cabaret, then why didn't they bury him in 2016, so that Her Majesty could reign?

                      Because his people, including you, apparently don't care about his bad character. You all still find his antebellum dogma attractive.

                    • Even one of Wikipedia's founders admits it's gone to seed [independent.co.uk]. At least you don't cite Vox or HuffPo or TheAtlantic. So, not compelling. However, I've read Conrad Black's and Victor Davis Hanson's books on Trump (the latter being less biographical).

                      apparently don't care about his bad character

                      Waiting for some good-faith analysis there.

                    • Don't care about HuffPost or Trump books. The court records spell out the slime you are still supporting, and you remain in denial and blind to the conflict. Pretty sad sight

                    • Here, I'll make it easy for ya.. Trump isn't "HitIer", he's your party's Bill Clinton [nyt.com], only with more lawsuits, and here you are, standing tall for that character

  • Clearly you support this author, but it's not clear how closely you align yourself with his argument. A week or so ago you were telling us that you felt his "fourth branch of government" claim was just spin, and that neither you nor he actually saw the intelligence community as an actual fourth branch. Now you seem to have swung the other way and you are using his words directly and writing in support of the notion. Did he persuade you that he actually means what he says, and in so doing convince you tha
    • What if I am not on a "side" per se?

      This whole "fourth branch" argument is a no-brainer outcome of the Administrative State. "The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of a growing bureaucracy".

      Having said that, the question is to what degree one believes that a tiny cadre of IC bosses (and whoever they report to) have a stranglehold on the other three branches and direct little things like elections.

      It is abhorrent to me to think that such is the case, for all our government has been a worse farce

      • What if I am not on a "side" per se?

        Last week (or perhaps prior; whenever you started parading out the work of this friend of yours) you took a pretty solid stance that

        • You did not see the IC as an actual fourth branch of government
          • AND
          • That you believed the author didn't actually see it that way either, and was just using the phrase "fourth branch of government" as some sort of contorted rhetoric in the interest of driving some other point home

          I'm not convinced you believe the latter anymore. I'm not even sure you believe the former any

        • I regret it if you think that:
          • I am a Mitch McConnell apologist. Seeing what an abject tool Merrick Garland is as AG, keeping him off SCOTUS seems wise in retrospect. But MM is a poster child for term limits.
          • I meant a literal fourth branch of government. Reifying such a branch would make it instantly Unconstitutional.
          • I meand something beside an effective fourth branch. The obvious genius of the anti-American effort of our day is to exist in shadow and exert control over the visible levers of power. A far m

          • You seem to believe that this is some kind of recent phenomenon.

            He lost, dood

          • I am a Mitch McConnell apologist. Seeing what an abject tool Merrick Garland is as AG, keeping him off SCOTUS seems wise in retrospect. But MM is a poster child for term limits.

            You're notably not condemning anything about McConnell's actions in the senate. You just praised how he established a loony new Senate "rule" at the end of the Lawnchair Administration to prevent a hearing on a SCOTUS opening. If all you can criticize about him is the fact that he's been in power for decades then you're not far from being an apologist (although apologies usually come with admission of wrongdoing).

            I meant a literal fourth branch of government. Reifying such a branch would make it instantly Unconstitutional.

            That is the question I've been asking you to answer. It seemed that you were a hard no on

            • He's just making noise, will never admit Trump lost just as fairly as everybody else ever did

              Wall Street is the fourth branch

              Everybody in DC, including the intelligence collective, serves the financial "community".

              • Wall Street is the fourth branch

                You're mostly right there. Except Wall Street isn't a branch, as that would imply they were equal to the other branches. Wall Street is the base of the tree. You could cut off one or more other branches and they would wither and die, but Wall Street would carry on.

            • If you want to claim that you now see the IC as an effective fourth branch, even that is a shift since you started posting links to this author. You originally were claiming that he was saying something completely different than what he was writing, and the difference between "literal" and "effective" is not as much of a difference as you were previously claiming.

              You're interacting with my posts and seeing whatever you want.

              • If you want to claim that you now see the IC as an effective fourth branch, even that is a shift since you started posting links to this author. You originally were claiming that he was saying something completely different than what he was writing, and the difference between "literal" and "effective" is not as much of a difference as you were previously claiming.

                You're interacting with my posts and seeing whatever you want.

                No. I'm asking what your opinion of the "fourth branch of government" argument is, as it seems to be changing over time.

                You're entitled to change your opinion over time. I'm just asking what your current opinion is.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed." -- Robin, The Boy Wonder

Close