RSS
DOJ Tells Senator Wyden That Incoming FBI Director James Comey Has No Intention Of Answering His Questions
from the probably-not-the-best-idea dept
On Monday, the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed James Comey to be the new FBI director, despite significant concerns raised about his views on civil liberties and surveillance. Senator Rand Paul had blocked the vote for a while, claiming he wanted answers concerning whether or not Comey believed the FBI could use drones without a warrant. The FBI finally responded to Paul saying that it believed that it had the authority to use drones without a warrant, prompting Paul to stop the block (which would have been overridden shortly anyway), and then he was the lone "no" vote against Comey, who was approved 93-1. However, at least the DOJ was willing to answer Senator Paul's questions.
Senator Ron Wyden also expressed concerns about Comey's views on surveillance, and had sent a letter asking a variety of questions about Comey's views on the subject, "including whether he believes warrantless wire tapping is legal, and whether he would commit to explain how much evidence the FBI needs to track Americans using their cell phone location data." In response, the DOJ basically told Wyden to get lost:
Senator Ron Wyden also expressed concerns about Comey's views on surveillance, and had sent a letter asking a variety of questions about Comey's views on the subject, "including whether he believes warrantless wire tapping is legal, and whether he would commit to explain how much evidence the FBI needs to track Americans using their cell phone location data." In response, the DOJ basically told Wyden to get lost:
Mr. Comey could have answered most or all of these questions without disclosing any properly classified information, but the Justice Department informed me today that he will not be responding to any of them.Remember, Wyden serves on the Intelligence Committee, which is in charge of oversight of the intelligence community. One would think that flat out refusing to answer his questions is not the best way to respond to a member of the committee in charge of your oversight. In the end, Wyden voted "present" rather than "no," but stated that he could not vote in favor of Comey.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
It's better (for him at least) than flat out lying like Clapper did.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
one of our major problems in a nutshell: draconian consequences for you and me in the 99% for copying bits, eating pop tarts in the shape of a gun, or, well WHATEVER the fuck they want to jack us up for today (the criminalization of living); but scumbags who betray the constitution, steal the wealth of the country, lie with impunity, get nothing but cushy jobs and medals of freedom...
world gone crazy...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My guess is that voting 'no' would have had some repercussion from the leadership, so he just didn't vote.
Who knows.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
oversight of the intelligence community
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oversight of the intelligence community
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oversight of the intelligence community
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
The Rest of the world has been waiting for decades to see when the citizens of the US will figure that one out.
But nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the general public.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
It's not the D or R after their name we should be looking at, it's the $ in their bank accounts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...I'm guessing no. God-damned hypocrites.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait
We didn't, did we?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodbye Budget
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Goodbye Budget
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Goodbye Budget
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not how the Founding Fathers intended this country to operate.
We no longer have a Constitution, that's been rewritten by the secret FISC court. We can't even read the laws anymore, because the laws are secret.
There's no longer any checks and balances in government anymore, because the FBI does not need to answer congress' questions.
Now all we need to do is start throwing elections, and the downfall of of this countries democracy will be complete.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We had the Supreme Court effectively decide one in 2000, and Republican state houses have been trying really hard to stack the deck for future elections for the last few years. There are few if any places where you see any sort of push back from the judiciary.
If that's your criteria I'd say it's all over except the concession speech.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> really hard to stack the deck for future
> elections for the last few years
Let's not pretend the Dems are any better when it comes to gerrymandering. There's a district in Texas, drawn back when the Dems were last in charge of things, that looks like a piece of spaghetti. Less than a mile wide, it winds and corkscrews from one end of the state to the other, over 800 miles, coicidentally only passing through areas that highly favor Democrats.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wyden was engaged in nothing more than political theater, an act hardly deserving of praise.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment