Republican Congressman from S. Carolina rips into DHS official over no-fly no-buy list.

a reply to: gladtobehere

At least someone is willing to speak up and defend the law-abiding citizen and their rights in this whole debate. He's absolutely right that this would not be acceptable if we were talking about any other Constitutional right and it shouldn't be acceptable here. The answer from the DHS woman is the same answer I've gotten when making a similar argument to people who support this: nothing.

Thank you, Trey Gowdy, for saying what needed to be said and more importantly, HOW it needed to be said in front of Congress. There's a little sanity left in DC, it seems. Don't get me wrong, I support the basic idea here, but the means by which the Democrats want to do this is flat out unacceptable and gives them all manner of potential to abuse a Constitutional right that they all but refuse to recognize exists. The GOP version has its own set of problems and I don't support it in its current form, either, but at least they've made some effort to address the concerns that Gowdy raised.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Um I wouldn't trust any politician from SC I lived there for nearly 4 years and its politics is more corrupt than a 3rd world country according to political over sight watchdogs.

Example a couple of politicians got pulled over for DUI's and they passed a law demanding police drive with their blue lights on top lit as a state law but not flashing or any siren saying it was entrapment to not be obvious.

But hey before they were getting pulled it wasn't entrapment? One even had the nerve to pull the dont you know who I am card...

I dont know what kinda nonsense has happened since I left but horrid state politics from people trying to be above the law and the rest of the citizens just peons.

How does this have anything to do with the OP?

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Since you asked: We're doing just fine down here, thank you.

So your 4 years down here was horrid? Ah me, bless you're heart. Sorry it was bad for you.

My 27 years has been overall pretty nice.

South Carolina is like any of the other 49 states: there are good people and bad people. Good politicians and corrupt ones.

Trey is from up state and that's his district, from the Spartanburg area, which includes a lot of the Foothills. Many small towns and beautiful countryside.

Mr. Gowdy wasn't as concerned about "due process" when he was illegitimately redacting and then lying about Hillary Clinton's emails was he? Or when he revealed confidential information about witnesses?

Ex-House Benghazi Investigator Says Committee Chair Rep. Trey Gowdy Broke The Law

Congressman Trey Gowdy Sued By Republican Benghazi Panel Whistleblower

I guess trampling the Constitution is fine when it serves the interests of your political party, eh, Trey?

Even Donald J. Trump expressed concerns about the way Gowdy handled the Benghazi Investigation Scandal ... (Source) ...strangly, Trump still thinks he would make a GREAT Attorney General ... most odd.

Speaking of odd and Donald J. Trump on this particular issue ...

WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that people on the terror watch list should be barred from buying firearms, putting himself in the center of a gun-control debate in Congress revived by the worst mass shooting in United States history.

New York Times

Exact quote from Trump:

“I will be meeting with the N.R.A., who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no-fly list, to buy guns,”

Response from the NRA?

N.R.A. officials said on Twitter that they would be happy to meet with Mr. Trump, but that the group had not changed its position: withholding guns from people on the terrorist watch list, the vast majority of whom have not been charged with a crime, would give the government too much power to deny people of their Second Amendment right.

Saddest comment of all is that the potential future President of the United States already has to kow-tow to the gun lobby...

"Process vs. due-process… Ma'am?

Love the way she clammed up when she got where he was coming from. Oh yah, those pesky rights, again.

Hitler had a solution for people that opposed his establishment of an authoritarian 'process'.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Wow. I've got to say the answer at the 25 second mark scared the (bleep) outta me. So if I understand this correctly, we as US citizens can be put "on the list" without any say in the matter, but have to fight tooth an nail to get off the list if possible. Is this how the gun grab will start: Your on a list so you WILL turn in your weapons, until you clear yourself?

originally posted by: Snarl

Why does he not proffer charges of Sedition in such instances of abuse? He is a member of Congress after all. He has the right. If he did it once or twice ... would the practice not cease?

No one I know of in Congress has our backs. Not ... even ... for ... one ... second.

I understand what you are driving at, but I think in this particular instance he is trying to wake everyone up first, but yes that would most definitely be the next step.

originally posted by: Chance321
a reply to: gladtobehere

Wow. I've got to say the answer at the 25 second mark scared the (bleep) outta me. So if I understand this correctly, we as US citizens can be put "on the list" without any say in the matter, but have to fight tooth an nail to get off the list if possible. Is this how the gun grab will start: Your on a list so you WILL turn in your weapons, until you clear yourself?

Yes, that's how the lists work currently. But at the moment, it's just a list that flags you as someone who might be predisposed to do bad things. It might subject you to some inconvenience at the airport. There is a no-fly list, but one would think that one has more stringent criteria applied to it, although given the state of our bureaucracy, you never know.

But part of the problem is that you have people in congress conflating no-fly and watch lists. My husband was on a watch list. We don't know if he still has since he hasn't flown very often in recent years as his company has tightened up on sending people to conferences whereas they used to send people all the time. That's the only reason he knows he was on one - an airport person told him and then also told him that he wasn't supposed to have been told.

So depending on what lists they use and what the criteria are, you could be put on there for any of a host of reasons and end up not being told, even when they are using the list to deny you something. So finding out you are on one isn't even a given so that you can fight it, and then there is no real process preventing some other bureaucrat from deciding you meet the criteria to land back on one even if you do get removed once. So you are back at square one.

What they are proposing is insidious.

originally posted by: intrptr

"Process vs. due-process… Ma'am?

Love the way she clammed up when she got where he was coming from. Oh yah, those pesky rights, again.

Hitler had a solution for people that opposed his establishment of an authoritarian 'process'.

Going Godwin. Love it.

The problem is the usual conflation of the No Fly List (initiated by the Bush Administration) with any abridgement of the Second Amendment without due process.

No one is being or has been kept from buying guns no matter what list they're on.

No legislation will go in place without a measure for due process, or it would immediately be found unconstitutional.

originally posted by: ketsuko

What they are proposing is insidious.

What exactly are you referring to?

What legislation?

a reply to: gladtobehere

Was she responsible for the induction of the process he is questioning her on? If not, I'd say his arrogance and loud voice is unwarrented in her direction.

originally posted by: Miracula2
a reply to: gladtobehere

Was she responsible for the induction of the process he is questioning her on? If not, I'd say his arrogance and loud voice is unwarrented in her direction.

Unless he's trying desperately to find new ground after his utter fumbling in the Benghazi Investigation Scandal ...

... then it makes perfect sense.

Big, tough, guy.

as of the fall of 2015, trey gowdy was still using his own private e-mail to conduct official business....you would think he would take his own advice.....
www.dailynewsbin.com...

originally posted by: jimmyx
as of the fall of 2015, trey gowdy was still using his own private e-mail to conduct official business....you would think he would take his own advice.....
www.dailynewsbin.com...

Perhaps he will investigate himself next?

Nah, he's not running for office as a Democrat, is he?

No need.

originally posted by: jimmyx
as of the fall of 2015, trey gowdy was still using his own private e-mail to conduct official business....you would think he would take his own advice.....
www.dailynewsbin.com...

That may be. Seems to me that its not really relevant in this particular discussion, though.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko

What they are proposing is insidious.

What exactly are you referring to?

What legislation?

The Democrat proposal to make the no-fly list a no-buy list. This IS what Mr. Gowdy is talking about. They want to vote on it ... Tomorrow I think.

Doing this would effectively tie removal of a Consittutionally guaranteed right to a list that has no due process at all attached to how one lands on it, and as he says (and you agreed), getting your right back amounts to fighting the government for it.

How many other of your basic rights should be delegate in this way?

a reply to: vor78

Not only that, but the question would be - is he handling classified government business? That's what Clinton is in trouble for - using an insecure means to handle classified government documents.

Oh, after walking back three links, AddictingInfo has the "scoop," he was handling campaign contact info with it. So unless you think his campaign contacts information should be classified information that no one should know (aren't we all worried about who is buying our government officials these days?), then this is basically a nothingburger meant to attempt to conflate US campaign donors and people reaching to their congressmen with people who are hacking into sensitive US intel from our Secretary of State.

Or at present, it looks like another attempt to make Clinton's email look like the equivalent of "they are just prosecuting him for sex" like they did with Bill. Only in this case, they are trying to make it look like everyone does it, but they just hate Hillary, so they're going to make her instance look bad.

a reply to: ketsuko

Agreed, but my point here is that its being brought up to distract from the fact that he's absolutely right about the argument he's making on the no-fly lists. Its an attempt to change the subject and lose focus on a position that can't be defended otherwise.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko

What they are proposing is insidious.

What exactly are you referring to?

What legislation?

The Democrat proposal to make the no-fly list a no-buy list. This IS what Mr. Gowdy is talking about. They want to vote on it ... Tomorrow I think.

Doing this would effectively tie removal of a Consittutionally guaranteed right to a list that has no due process at all attached to how one lands on it, and as he says (and you agreed), getting your right back amounts to fighting the government for it.

How many other of your basic rights should be delegate in this way?

Have you read the Democratic Plan? Do you know how it differs from the Republican plan? If not, what source are you going on here for this information?

Or do you just want to preach about Constitutional due process which Trey Gowdy tramples when it serves his political agenda?

a reply to: ketsuko

He was handling the latest "Clinton" investigation ... so not only was he exposing all the emails that Clinton did, but all ancillary information ... but no, that's fine, he's Republican so we can trust him, right?

We know that selective outrage is at the heart of partisan politics, so none of us should be surprised, I imagine.