NSC is part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Since its inception under Harry S. Truman, the function of the Council has been to advise and assist the president on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the president's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies.
So, this is essentially a committee, put together by the president, do do what he wants. It is not a branch of government, it is an advisory council. Period. President can do what he wants with it which includes dissolving it, or renaming it the orange hair dye council. So why get your panties in a twist that he is using his committee as he wants? From: Josh Reynolds Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in office The security council decides on many things, and anything pushed to from the security council to another branch (judicial for example) is expected to be followed. I'm a little fuzzy on the legality of how that aspect works. Are you familiar with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? It's proceedings are keep very secret (in the name of national security) and no reviews or appeals from said court can travel to the supreme court. That said, they've had quite a few leaks by outraged defendants and other individuals of said court. The FISC, in very broad terms, rules on the legality of many things the National Security Council wants to accomplish. It actually doesn't so much check to see if they are legal as it does wordsmith what the NSC wants done to make it fit in loopholes of the current legal framework. This is the court that has legalized large scale spying on American citizens, among other things. So now, we have a National Security Council who's senate appointed members are only allowed to attend when asked to, that pushes policy down to a secret court that has used any and every means to find ways around the US Constitution against American citizens. Carry on though, it's no big deal. On Jan 29, 2017 6:01 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> wrote: I understand the whole "granting yourself powers" thing but I don't get why you think the executive branch deciding who inside the executive branch should attend meetings or briefings is somehow unconstitutional. I don't get that. It is his branch, not the judiciary and not the Congress. I am not saying it is good judgement, just not unconstitutional or granting himself powers. Unless I missed something which is possible as this discussion had worm me out. But by all means, continue. On Sun, Jan 29, 2017, 5:45 PM Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: Do you support a president removing access to hearings for individuals in positions that were confirmed by the senate via executive action. Do you support a president removing access to hearings for individuals in positions that were confirmed by the senate via the passing of a bill or bills? On Jan 29, 2017 5:41 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: ask a less purposefully vague question On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: Answer this question: Should we allow any government official to bestow powers upon their own office? I know exactly what the founding fathers thought of this, because they wrote extensively about it. I'm asking for your opinion here. On Jan 29, 2017 5:32 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: no, we need compartmentalization of government. Thats exactly what is happenning. and people like you are just too ego pilled to actually see it happen. "he will waterboard" who? "Drumf" really? "yeas, he said so" interesting, will he hold the towel, or pour the water? "well no, but hes going to" really? "well, not him directly" oh, so who? "he will put people in charge to do it" really? "yes" like mattis and pompeo? "exactly" interesting he cant run, he cant win, his numbers are too low, he wont get the primary, he wont get those states, why is he there, he doesnt know what he is doing...... really? The problem with people like you, you think very very small, not bigly. You cant comprehend this presidency has been in the works since the 80s. People like you are exactly why its going to grow, youve already clinched 8 years. Why you ask? See above. There has never been a presidency like this presidency, where the constitution fully worked exactly as intended, yet you want to pull the "when in history" well, thats easy... never. 1 week and the whole nation is in play, this has never happened before, on this many fronts, and you are still talking about what you know. You are begging, pleading, insulting for the status quo, because thats what you do actually know. On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: So I sit here and go through the trouble of providing a historical list of times this has happened. Your response would be "doesn't matter, that isn't Trump". And on one hand you'd be right, Trump isn't them. It still sets up a terrible precedent for himself and future presidents that allows for rampant abuse that remains unchecked by the house and senate. Do we really need more government shadow organizations that have no mechanism for congressional oversight? On Jan 29, 2017 5:08 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: you are living in what ifs, assumptions, and biased logic. youre doing fine for yourself. Carry on comrade, in fascism younite On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: I can't dispense of pretenses I never claimed to hold. You said it wasn't a big deal, you couldn't find a source. I provided a source, and you also found a copy (but failed to read it). Then you said it didn't read that way, so I highlighted the exact line in question to save you the time from reading it. Then you went on some batshit tangent about filing a FOIA on the National Security Council of all things. Then you brought up "it hasn't happened yet". Can you please provide a reference in the history of the world when a power was granted to someone BY THEMSELVES in government that later wasn't abused? You're blindly trying to maintain a position on this without any sort of rational thought. This is the world our kids are going to grow up in. Please, at least try to make it a better one. On Jan 29, 2017 4:51 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: how centrist of you to devolve so quickly On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: Steve, you are a prime example of the failure of the public education system :P On Jan 29, 2017 4:46 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: oh.... so you are saying youre complaining about something that hasnt even happenned... at least thats clear On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: I'm saying if you're going to have a meeting of the security council, it would be fucking prudent to have the Director of National Intelligence. You can't file a FOIA request until after something has taken place, and FOIA requests are redacted or denied in the name of national security. On Jan 29, 2017 4:20 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: thats an awful small amount of text to deliver the entirety of the message. hwat check and balances are you describing here by a person attending a meeting that doesnt pertain to them? are you saying they have excluded appropriate personell from meetings? File a FOIA for the specific meetings you are referencing. reply in line now with the specific meetings you are referencing having taken place so that when you recieve the FOIA response we can correlate them to the listed grievances you are referencing today On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: Here's the line you are looking for. Above and below it lists, by item, who is allowed to attend at all times, and who shall attend when it pertains to them. So who's to say that it ever pertains to them? Our government is based on checks and balances, right? This removes quite a bit of balance when the only individuals confirmed by the Senate may spend the next 4 years without anything "pertaining to them". On Jan 29, 2017 4:09 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: Im assuming this is excerpt of this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and this sounds like bannon is becoming the equivalent of an executive secretary, not jesus of jihadi as its being portrayed. The NSA and HSA (why isnt there a big stink here?) are glorified secretaries (like the girl at the desk on steroids) At no point does it state that the directors are disinvited to anything that pertains to them. A restructuring with formal time management. Have you watched the senate hearings... very inefficient time management. On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: His position is mandatory for them to meet. The JCoS and DNI may only attend when it is determined it is required. Text attached from the order. On Jan 29, 2017 3:39 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: this im still trying to find a legitimate source of what is actually happening on. just like youre saying it makes him more important than the director of the cia, i cant find much other than ego inflated opinions. On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: What's your take on making Steve Bannon's new role critical to the National Security Council (making him more important than the Director of the CIA) while only allowing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence to attend "when it pertains to them"? This was an executive order... On Jan 29, 2017 2:40 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> wrote: I can't believe everyone is arguing about who lies more. Wouldn't it be great if we could argue about the policy and theory rather than the character, or lack thereof? On Jan 29, 2017 2:23 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: It sounds like you want a dictatorship. On Jan 29, 2017 2:11 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: i truly hope you maintain your thought process, exactly as it is, and those of like mind, it will make 2020 a breeze. And ivankas 8 year reign will be glorious On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: He's trying to use the very tactics he promotes in "art of the deal", which basically means "lie about everything, and negotiate down". I will be absolutely amazed if he makes it into a second term. I am also thinking that the Dems won't have their shit together over the next 4 though. What a fucked up place we are in. On Jan 29, 2017 2:04 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: then even more work can be done On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: The real question is whether he can keep it up for 207 more weeks. And once the news organizations stop fawning over him, what does he do? Start wars? Drop a nuke on Mexico? He can't stand anything else being the shiny object, but you tell the news media to shut up and listen, at some point they will shut up and cover something else. Anybody notice all the old actors kicking off? Did they really die over the past 18 months and the news is just now dribbling out, or did the Trump victory just take away their hope? Barbara Hale was 94, I guess waiting 4 more years to see if the Orange One wins re-election might seem a bit much to ask. John Hurt was 77, Mary Tyler Moore was 80. I'm 66, it's always a bit unnerving when someone younger than me dies. But they say, only the good die young. Carrie Fisher must have been very, very good. We miss you, Princess. -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Prince Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in office That is just not true. Several fact organizations made it pretty clear that untruths from Orange's mouth were about twice as plentiful as untruths from any other politician from either party ( and that includes Obama and Clinton). bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 1/29/2017 10:44 AM, Rory Conaway wrote: > Nobody will ever lie as much as Obama or Hillary. That is a bar the will never again be reached. > > Rory > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Prince > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 11:32 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in > office > > Nothing factually incorrect in that piece. It is largely opinion, so take it for that. > > One thing that I disagree with is calling him a liar. I think he's not necessarily lying; he just doesn't know the truth. Most of what he says appears to be just made up on the fly, and my observation is that his memory is not so good. > > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 1/28/2017 10:48 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: >> First week...What a joke... >> >> >> http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170127/fact-check-on-donald-trumps-fir >> s >> t-week-in-office -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
