Democratic Leaders AFRAID to look at the FISA Memo! BWAHAHAHA

[usmbguest5318]

I have looked for Congressional rules/procedural documentation that indicates the declassification process for Congressional documents requires a vote of any sort. I have not found anything indicating that is the case. Perhaps by working together you will find it, and if you do, please share it with me. AFAIK, the only thing I'm aware of Congress voting on is legislation. [1] Everything else Congress does happens via a Congressional administrative action, and such actions need no vote.

Oh, come on, Congress-critters vote on a lot more than legislation, most of the time they vote on procedural matters.

But in the case of their own committee reports and memos like this one, I recall reading in numerous places that the committees have ultimate authority on what classification their own memos and reports have. I dont know how much influence the larger party leadership has on these votes, but I think that they are pretty much strictly committee votes on such things as it is their baby so to speak.

this is the most recent doc I can find on the topic and it is from 2007, so things may have changed some.

But essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

Any Congressional reports/memos that contain classified information are also classified, but may be released in redacted form with the executive branch sensitive information removed.

https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/pidb/meetings/06-22-07-carpenter.pdf

4: The Congressional Intelligence Committees The intelligence committees of the House and Senate have developed additional controls and procedures for handling classified records.
The rules of procedure of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence prescribe that the Staff Director of that committee maintain a registry of all classified documents in the possession of that office, that access to classified records to staff members be limited to those with the proper clearance and need-to-know, and that when making classified records available to a senator outside of the committee, that senator must be advised of the responsibility to protect those records, and that all such transmittals must be recorded by the Clerk of the Committee.25
The rules of procedure of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also specify that the Director of Security and Registry of that Committee keep a numbered registry of, “…all classified documents provided to the Committee by the Executive branch that remain in the possession of the Committee,” and establish control over the dissemination of classified information outside the Committee.26
As part of the oversight role of the committees, the rules of both the House and Senate committees specify that each committee, “…may disclose publicly any information in its possession after a determination by the Select Committee that the public interest would be served by such disclosure.”27
In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....
Conclusion: The enabling legislation of the Public Interest Declassification Board states that one of the purposes of the board is, “To promote the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant United States national security decisions and significant United States national security activities in order to: (A), support the oversight and legislative functions of Congress; (B), support the policymaking role of the Executive branch; (C), respond to the interest of the public in national security matters; and (D), promote reliable historical analysis and new avenues of historical study in national security matters.”31...
While the Office of Senate Security currently has strong procedures in place for the control of classified records and the rules of the House and Senate intelligence committees call for registers of classified documents to be kept, for decades the classified records of Congress were not systematically controlled, and the House security office, while promising, is not yet fully operational.
Furthermore, according to the staff of the Center for Legislative Archives, the congressional committees who handle the most classified 11 national security information do not routinely transfer their most sensitive records to the physical custody of the Center for preservation, description, and eventual access.32
The Public Interest Declassification Board is an appropriate advocate for an effective declassification program for the classified records of Congress to ensure the proper safeguarding of classified national security information and to promote the fullest documentary record of American history.​

The reference to the full chamber I think refers to the House or Senate, but only if the Committees decision to release the information is challenged by the President. How the committee reaches said decision is something unique to each committee but I think most of them use a majority yes/no vote.

First of all:

As per the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence rules of procedure. At the bottom of page 13, there is a Section, (f), headed "Requests by Members of Other Committees." That section does indeed stipulate that:

"The Committee shall consider each such request by non-Committee members at the earliest practicable opportunity. The Committee shall determine, by record vote, what action it deems appropriate in light of all of the circumstances of each request."​

The thing is, that has already happened, for the Nunes memo has been made available to the whole of the House.

Insofar as it has already happened, Rule 4 in section (f), "Chair and Ranking Member Consideration of Requests for Previously Granted Materials," takes effect. Rule 4 in Section (f) states that:

"If the Committee has granted a non-Committee member access to classified materials, the Chair and Ranking Member may jointly determine, in writing, what action they deem appropriate for subsequent requests for the same materials in the same Congress....If the Chair and Ranking Member are unable to reach a joint determination or if they refer a request to the Committee...Committee shall consider the request at the earliest practicable opportunity [by voting to determine what be the disposition of the request.]​

I do not know whether has been made a written request triggering Rule 4 in Section (f).

AFAIK, aside from an impeachment vote, there is no matter upon which House members vote that requires more than a simple majority for the matter/action in question to pass. It's my understanding that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (House Intel Cmte) of the 115th Congress has a four-member Republican majority. Because there is a four-person majority on that committee, if the Chair and Ranking Member differ on the matter of releasing to the public, fewer than all of the Republicans on the committee. That being so, brings me back to one of the requests I earlier made:

please share with us the House rule stipulating that House Intel Cmte. declassification votes require more than a simple majority to pass any or all motions to declassify a document.

That brings us back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it, be it by voting or by administrative decision, and then do so.​

Second:

essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

All well and good, but:

• the memo in question was written by Devin Nunes and sent to the POTUS,
• vote or no vote required, Republicans have a majority on the House Intel Cmte., and
• the POTUS can unilaterally declassify and release his copy of the memo and he, like Nunes, is a Republican.
  

  In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....

  Has Trump objected to the disclosure of the memo?

Those three facts bring me back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it and then do so.​

Third:

"Calling for" an action is what people/groups lacking formal power/authority to effect the called-for given action do. People/groups having the power/authority to effect the action simply perform the action if they are of a mind to do so. You will recall that my original remarks on this thread's topic had two key dimensions:

I just heard that Republicans are calling for the release of that memo that Devin Nunes wrote. Republicans control every branch and department of government. Why are calling for it it? They control everything; all they have to do is release it. They don't have to call for a damn thing.

• The GOP have all the power and authority they need to release Nunes' memo.
• Because they have the power/authority to do so, they have no need to call for releasing his memo.

Trump being POTUS, the nature of the the 115th Congress' (and the House Intel Cmte's) composition and the rules and procedures of the House Intel Cmte. show both my claims to be accurate. [2] Whether a vote is needed or isn't needed is irrelevant; Republicans have voting majorities throughout the House.
​

Note:

1. For example, I am semi-retired yet I remain as the formal/official head of my practice unit; thus if I want to effect a policy or procedure that would be applicable to my unit, I simply order it be done, and that's that.
   
   As a practical matter, since I'm semi-retired, I solicit input from the person who'll replace me. I do so mainly because I'll be fully retired in less than two years, and there's little value, at this point in my tenure, derived by my implementing a policy (taking an action) that endures that long but that he doesn't feel is apt and would thus repeal. The cycle of enact and repeal for such a short period would do little but create some small measure of confusion, and, frankly, no measure of confusion created by senior principals, however small, bodes well for the coherent and efficient operation of my practice unit or the firm.
   
   There is also the matter that confusion created by principals at my level in an organization is little other than a clear sign of such principals' ineptitude as managers. Moreover, there is the "knock-on" effect whereby all such signs rightly give perspicacious subordinates and observers cause to doubt the leadership and prudence of the manager from whom they come.
   
   The reason I presented this example is to highlight not my singular authority or how singular authority may be executed, but rather to illustrate the onus a person (group) having authority to execute a given action has to refrain from taking it when there are real or probable deleterious consequences of doing so and those impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Or, to put it another way, when the "business case" for taking the action is weak.
2. Rant:
   I get chided here for writing longish posts. The fact of the matter is that when I write short well considered ones such as I did when presenting my initial observations about this matter of calling for the release of Nunes' memo, my remarks are met with all sorts of "stupid sh*t" objections rather than with members inclined to objecting bothering to confirm the veracity, probativity and plausibility of their basis(-es) for objecting. (And, no, my feelings aren't "hurt" by their doing so for if it happens enough, I'll ignore the member and having now awareness of their remarks, spend no time responding to them.)
   
   If one makes a brief conclusive comment or summary level set of conclusive comments borne of due consideration, folks try to poke holes in it due to its brevity. If one makes a relatively comprehensive comment that includes one's brief conclusion(s) and the points one considered in arriving at it, people attack the length of the post, or me for having posted a longish set of remarks. That's no way to have a mature discussion.
   
   And, no, I'm not of a mind to describe your comments to me in this discussion as "stupid sh*t." It's clear to me that you did read the document to which I linked and you did directly address the voting aspect of the matter by pointing out a scenario in which voting by the House Intel Cmte. might be required to release the memo.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Dems, in the form of the now-defunct Clinton Machine, used the intelligence agencies to attempt a covert coup on your presidential elections. They spied on the opposition party, in this case the Trump campaign.

And they all failed miserably.

For this alone they should all be fired, if not prosecuted. Such inept and ineffective bumbling idiots cannot be trusted with our welfare.

 

[iceberg]

When every Republican Leader has read it and is demanding for it's release to the American public

I just heard that Republicans are calling for the release of that memo that Devin Nunes wrote. Republicans control every branch and department of government. Why are calling for it it? They control everything; all they have to do is release it. They don't have to call for a damn thing.

BINGO! they classified it, they can declassify it....

it's all the same game only reverse of what they did with the Fusion GPS testimony.... they made up a bi fat lie about the dossier and Steele, and could only tell the lies if they kept the GPS testimony from us....

now they are telling another one of their lies and claiming dems don't want it released, then they claimed democrats haven't read it.... who knows what they will lie about next???

from which side?

we've come to allow lies because we don't like the other side and they deserve it. so here's where we wind up collectively. we *all* need to stop this shit.

 

[Mac1958]

This had better be good.

And clear. And obvious. And not a stretch.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They're prepping us for something big. They can't just drop proof that a former beloved political party is a corrupt sham, a corroded fraud. That they are a bought and sold private organization that ignores their own voters and uses US intelligence agencies to illegally fix presidential elections.

What will that make of their true believers? The pussy suit wearing, sky screaming, burning, looting, anxiety-ridden, depressed Losers?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems, in the form of the now-defunct Clinton Machine, used the intelligence agencies to attempt a covert coup on your presidential elections. They spied on the opposition party, in this case the Trump campaign.

And they all failed miserably.

For this alone they should all be fired, if not prosecuted. Such inept and ineffective bumbling idiots cannot be trusted with our welfare.

I'm wondering if Obama set a precedent and if Trump should start targeting prominent Democrats for surveillance cuz, Russia yannow

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressive Talking Point Responses:

1. there was a typo in the memo, how can we trust it
2. What does any of this have to do with Trump conspiring to collude with Putin to hack our democracy
3. it was a long time ago, get over it

 

[dannyboys]

No Democrat fears it, they have not even read it...

You h ave your cause and effect reversed here, C4A.

Nunes is a Trump hack....he planned this whole thing nearly a year ago with the whitehouse, and called all those press conferences.... don't you remember? Then he had to RECUSE himself from the investigation and he was accused of leaking classified information.... and was put under an Ethics Investigation....

the repubs in bed with trump called for an investigation in to the alleged unmasking, and came back saying after they investigated they found nothing illegal done with the unmasking to people who had the clearance and need to know...

this hoop dee dah, is just Nunes trying again...

tell me something....why is it all A OK that Nunes, who was heavily involved with the trump campaign transition team, who hates Hillary and loves trump, a person to believe on any of this?

He lied when he said he recused himself....

As you know the Ethics Committee cleared Nunes 100%. While they were investigating him he TEMPORARILY recused himself.
After he was exonerated he resumed his role on the committee.
JESUS CHRIST!!! it's going to be SO sweet to watch you run and hide after all the DEM/FBI corrupt US traitors are charged and sentenced to prison.
"YA BUT!!! YA BUT!!!! Trump MUST have been blackmailing Mueller and his team!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Face it pal. You're just another LIB LOSER!

 

[dannyboys]

I have looked for Congressional rules/procedural documentation that indicates the declassification process for Congressional documents requires a vote of any sort. I have not found anything indicating that is the case. Perhaps by working together you will find it, and if you do, please share it with me. AFAIK, the only thing I'm aware of Congress voting on is legislation. [1] Everything else Congress does happens via a Congressional administrative action, and such actions need no vote.

Oh, come on, Congress-critters vote on a lot more than legislation, most of the time they vote on procedural matters.

But in the case of their own committee reports and memos like this one, I recall reading in numerous places that the committees have ultimate authority on what classification their own memos and reports have. I dont know how much influence the larger party leadership has on these votes, but I think that they are pretty much strictly committee votes on such things as it is their baby so to speak.

this is the most recent doc I can find on the topic and it is from 2007, so things may have changed some.

But essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

Any Congressional reports/memos that contain classified information are also classified, but may be released in redacted form with the executive branch sensitive information removed.

https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/pidb/meetings/06-22-07-carpenter.pdf

4: The Congressional Intelligence Committees The intelligence committees of the House and Senate have developed additional controls and procedures for handling classified records.
The rules of procedure of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence prescribe that the Staff Director of that committee maintain a registry of all classified documents in the possession of that office, that access to classified records to staff members be limited to those with the proper clearance and need-to-know, and that when making classified records available to a senator outside of the committee, that senator must be advised of the responsibility to protect those records, and that all such transmittals must be recorded by the Clerk of the Committee.25
The rules of procedure of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also specify that the Director of Security and Registry of that Committee keep a numbered registry of, “…all classified documents provided to the Committee by the Executive branch that remain in the possession of the Committee,” and establish control over the dissemination of classified information outside the Committee.26
As part of the oversight role of the committees, the rules of both the House and Senate committees specify that each committee, “…may disclose publicly any information in its possession after a determination by the Select Committee that the public interest would be served by such disclosure.”27
In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....
Conclusion: The enabling legislation of the Public Interest Declassification Board states that one of the purposes of the board is, “To promote the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant United States national security decisions and significant United States national security activities in order to: (A), support the oversight and legislative functions of Congress; (B), support the policymaking role of the Executive branch; (C), respond to the interest of the public in national security matters; and (D), promote reliable historical analysis and new avenues of historical study in national security matters.”31...
While the Office of Senate Security currently has strong procedures in place for the control of classified records and the rules of the House and Senate intelligence committees call for registers of classified documents to be kept, for decades the classified records of Congress were not systematically controlled, and the House security office, while promising, is not yet fully operational.
Furthermore, according to the staff of the Center for Legislative Archives, the congressional committees who handle the most classified 11 national security information do not routinely transfer their most sensitive records to the physical custody of the Center for preservation, description, and eventual access.32
The Public Interest Declassification Board is an appropriate advocate for an effective declassification program for the classified records of Congress to ensure the proper safeguarding of classified national security information and to promote the fullest documentary record of American history.​

The reference to the full chamber I think refers to the House or Senate, but only if the Committees decision to release the information is challenged by the President. How the committee reaches said decision is something unique to each committee but I think most of them use a majority yes/no vote.

First of all:

As per the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence rules of procedure. At the bottom of page 13, there is a Section, (f), headed "Requests by Members of Other Committees." That section does indeed stipulate that:

"The Committee shall consider each such request by non-Committee members at the earliest practicable opportunity. The Committee shall determine, by record vote, what action it deems appropriate in light of all of the circumstances of each request."​

The thing is, that has already happened, for the Nunes memo has been made available to the whole of the House.

Insofar as it has already happened, Rule 4 in section (f), "Chair and Ranking Member Consideration of Requests for Previously Granted Materials," takes effect. Rule 4 in Section (f) states that:

"If the Committee has granted a non-Committee member access to classified materials, the Chair and Ranking Member may jointly determine, in writing, what action they deem appropriate for subsequent requests for the same materials in the same Congress....If the Chair and Ranking Member are unable to reach a joint determination or if they refer a request to the Committee...Committee shall consider the request at the earliest practicable opportunity [by voting to determine what be the disposition of the request.]​

I do not know whether has been made a written request triggering Rule 4 in Section (f).

AFAIK, aside from an impeachment vote, there is no matter upon which House members vote that requires more than a simple majority for the matter/action in question to pass. It's my understanding that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (House Intel Cmte) of the 115th Congress has a four-member Republican majority. Because there is a four-person majority on that committee, if the Chair and Ranking Member differ on the matter of releasing to the public, fewer than all of the Republicans on the committee. That being so, brings me back to one of the requests I earlier made:

please share with us the House rule stipulating that House Intel Cmte. declassification votes require more than a simple majority to pass any or all motions to declassify a document.

That brings us back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it, be it by voting or by administrative decision, and then do so.​

Second:

essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

All well and good, but:

• the memo in question was written by Devin Nunes and sent to the POTUS,
• vote or no vote required, Republicans have a majority on the House Intel Cmte., and
• the POTUS can unilaterally declassify and release his copy of the memo and he, like Nunes, is a Republican.
  

  In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....

  Has Trump objected to the disclosure of the memo?

Those three facts bring me back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it and then do so.​

Third:

"Calling for" an action is what people/groups lacking formal power/authority to effect the called-for given action do. People/groups having the power/authority to effect the action simply perform the action if they are of a mind to do so. You will recall that my original remarks on this thread's topic had two key dimensions:

I just heard that Republicans are calling for the release of that memo that Devin Nunes wrote. Republicans control every branch and department of government. Why are calling for it it? They control everything; all they have to do is release it. They don't have to call for a damn thing.

• The GOP have all the power and authority they need to release Nunes' memo.
• Because they have the power/authority to do so, they have no need to call for releasing his memo.

Trump being POTUS, the nature of the the 115th Congress' (and the House Intel Cmte's) composition and the rules and procedures of the House Intel Cmte. show both my claims to be accurate. [2] Whether a vote is needed or isn't needed is irrelevant; Republicans have voting majorities throughout the House.​

Note:

1. For example, I am semi-retired yet I remain as the formal/official head of my practice unit; thus if I want to effect a policy or procedure that would be applicable to my unit, I simply order it be done, and that's that.
   
   As a practical matter, since I'm semi-retired, I solicit input from the person who'll replace me. I do so mainly because I'll be fully retired in less than two years, and there's little value, at this point in my tenure, derived by my implementing a policy (taking an action) that endures that long but that he doesn't feel is apt and would thus repeal. The cycle of enact and repeal for such a short period would do little but create some small measure of confusion, and, frankly, no measure of confusion created by senior principals, however small, bodes well for the coherent and efficient operation of my practice unit or the firm.
   
   There is also the matter that confusion created by principals at my level in an organization is little other than a clear sign of such principals' ineptitude as managers. Moreover, there is the "knock-on" effect whereby all such signs rightly give perspicacious subordinates and observers cause to doubt the leadership and prudence of the manager from whom they come.
   
   The reason I presented this example is to highlight not my singular authority or how singular authority may be executed, but rather to illustrate the onus a person (group) having authority to execute a given action has to refrain from taking it when there are real or probable deleterious consequences of doing so and those impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Or, to put it another way, when the "business case" for taking the action is weak.
2. Rant:
   I get chided here for writing longish posts. The fact of the matter is that when I write short well considered ones such as I did when presenting my initial observations about this matter of calling for the release of Nunes' memo, my remarks are met with all sorts of "stupid sh*t" objections rather than with members inclined to objecting bothering to confirm the veracity, probativity and plausibility of their basis(-es) for objecting. (And, no, my feelings aren't "hurt" by their doing so for if it happens enough, I'll ignore the member and having now awareness of their remarks, spend no time responding to them.)
   
   If one makes a brief conclusive comment or summary level set of conclusive comments borne of due consideration, folks try to poke holes in it due to its brevity. If one makes a relatively comprehensive comment that includes one's brief conclusion(s) and the points one considered in arriving at it, people attack the length of the post, or me for having posted a longish set of remarks. That's no way to have a mature discussion.
   
   And, no, I'm not of a mind to describe your comments to me in this discussion as "stupid sh*t." It's clear to me that you did read the document to which I linked and you did directly address the voting aspect of the matter by pointing out a scenario in which voting by the House Intel Cmte. might be required to release the memo.

Next you'll be C&Ping 100K word posts while you are sitting on a rotting stinking dead horse you don't have the intellectual courage/integrity to climb off of.
I feel sorry for you pal.

 

[iceberg]

I have looked for Congressional rules/procedural documentation that indicates the declassification process for Congressional documents requires a vote of any sort. I have not found anything indicating that is the case. Perhaps by working together you will find it, and if you do, please share it with me. AFAIK, the only thing I'm aware of Congress voting on is legislation. [1] Everything else Congress does happens via a Congressional administrative action, and such actions need no vote.

Oh, come on, Congress-critters vote on a lot more than legislation, most of the time they vote on procedural matters.

But in the case of their own committee reports and memos like this one, I recall reading in numerous places that the committees have ultimate authority on what classification their own memos and reports have. I dont know how much influence the larger party leadership has on these votes, but I think that they are pretty much strictly committee votes on such things as it is their baby so to speak.

this is the most recent doc I can find on the topic and it is from 2007, so things may have changed some.

But essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

Any Congressional reports/memos that contain classified information are also classified, but may be released in redacted form with the executive branch sensitive information removed.

https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/pidb/meetings/06-22-07-carpenter.pdf

4: The Congressional Intelligence Committees The intelligence committees of the House and Senate have developed additional controls and procedures for handling classified records.
The rules of procedure of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence prescribe that the Staff Director of that committee maintain a registry of all classified documents in the possession of that office, that access to classified records to staff members be limited to those with the proper clearance and need-to-know, and that when making classified records available to a senator outside of the committee, that senator must be advised of the responsibility to protect those records, and that all such transmittals must be recorded by the Clerk of the Committee.25
The rules of procedure of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also specify that the Director of Security and Registry of that Committee keep a numbered registry of, “…all classified documents provided to the Committee by the Executive branch that remain in the possession of the Committee,” and establish control over the dissemination of classified information outside the Committee.26
As part of the oversight role of the committees, the rules of both the House and Senate committees specify that each committee, “…may disclose publicly any information in its possession after a determination by the Select Committee that the public interest would be served by such disclosure.”27
In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....
Conclusion: The enabling legislation of the Public Interest Declassification Board states that one of the purposes of the board is, “To promote the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant United States national security decisions and significant United States national security activities in order to: (A), support the oversight and legislative functions of Congress; (B), support the policymaking role of the Executive branch; (C), respond to the interest of the public in national security matters; and (D), promote reliable historical analysis and new avenues of historical study in national security matters.”31...
While the Office of Senate Security currently has strong procedures in place for the control of classified records and the rules of the House and Senate intelligence committees call for registers of classified documents to be kept, for decades the classified records of Congress were not systematically controlled, and the House security office, while promising, is not yet fully operational.
Furthermore, according to the staff of the Center for Legislative Archives, the congressional committees who handle the most classified 11 national security information do not routinely transfer their most sensitive records to the physical custody of the Center for preservation, description, and eventual access.32
The Public Interest Declassification Board is an appropriate advocate for an effective declassification program for the classified records of Congress to ensure the proper safeguarding of classified national security information and to promote the fullest documentary record of American history.​

The reference to the full chamber I think refers to the House or Senate, but only if the Committees decision to release the information is challenged by the President. How the committee reaches said decision is something unique to each committee but I think most of them use a majority yes/no vote.

First of all:

As per the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence rules of procedure. At the bottom of page 13, there is a Section, (f), headed "Requests by Members of Other Committees." That section does indeed stipulate that:

"The Committee shall consider each such request by non-Committee members at the earliest practicable opportunity. The Committee shall determine, by record vote, what action it deems appropriate in light of all of the circumstances of each request."​

The thing is, that has already happened, for the Nunes memo has been made available to the whole of the House.

Insofar as it has already happened, Rule 4 in section (f), "Chair and Ranking Member Consideration of Requests for Previously Granted Materials," takes effect. Rule 4 in Section (f) states that:

"If the Committee has granted a non-Committee member access to classified materials, the Chair and Ranking Member may jointly determine, in writing, what action they deem appropriate for subsequent requests for the same materials in the same Congress....If the Chair and Ranking Member are unable to reach a joint determination or if they refer a request to the Committee...Committee shall consider the request at the earliest practicable opportunity [by voting to determine what be the disposition of the request.]​

I do not know whether has been made a written request triggering Rule 4 in Section (f).

AFAIK, aside from an impeachment vote, there is no matter upon which House members vote that requires more than a simple majority for the matter/action in question to pass. It's my understanding that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (House Intel Cmte) of the 115th Congress has a four-member Republican majority. Because there is a four-person majority on that committee, if the Chair and Ranking Member differ on the matter of releasing to the public, fewer than all of the Republicans on the committee. That being so, brings me back to one of the requests I earlier made:

please share with us the House rule stipulating that House Intel Cmte. declassification votes require more than a simple majority to pass any or all motions to declassify a document.

That brings us back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it, be it by voting or by administrative decision, and then do so.​

Second:

essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

All well and good, but:

• the memo in question was written by Devin Nunes and sent to the POTUS,
• vote or no vote required, Republicans have a majority on the House Intel Cmte., and
• the POTUS can unilaterally declassify and release his copy of the memo and he, like Nunes, is a Republican.
  

  In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....

  Has Trump objected to the disclosure of the memo?

Those three facts bring me back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it and then do so.​

Third:

"Calling for" an action is what people/groups lacking formal power/authority to effect the called-for given action do. People/groups having the power/authority to effect the action simply perform the action if they are of a mind to do so. You will recall that my original remarks on this thread's topic had two key dimensions:

I just heard that Republicans are calling for the release of that memo that Devin Nunes wrote. Republicans control every branch and department of government. Why are calling for it it? They control everything; all they have to do is release it. They don't have to call for a damn thing.

• The GOP have all the power and authority they need to release Nunes' memo.
• Because they have the power/authority to do so, they have no need to call for releasing his memo.

Trump being POTUS, the nature of the the 115th Congress' (and the House Intel Cmte's) composition and the rules and procedures of the House Intel Cmte. show both my claims to be accurate. [2] Whether a vote is needed or isn't needed is irrelevant; Republicans have voting majorities throughout the House.​

Note:

1. For example, I am semi-retired yet I remain as the formal/official head of my practice unit; thus if I want to effect a policy or procedure that would be applicable to my unit, I simply order it be done, and that's that.
   
   As a practical matter, since I'm semi-retired, I solicit input from the person who'll replace me. I do so mainly because I'll be fully retired in less than two years, and there's little value, at this point in my tenure, derived by my implementing a policy (taking an action) that endures that long but that he doesn't feel is apt and would thus repeal. The cycle of enact and repeal for such a short period would do little but create some small measure of confusion, and, frankly, no measure of confusion created by senior principals, however small, bodes well for the coherent and efficient operation of my practice unit or the firm.
   
   There is also the matter that confusion created by principals at my level in an organization is little other than a clear sign of such principals' ineptitude as managers. Moreover, there is the "knock-on" effect whereby all such signs rightly give perspicacious subordinates and observers cause to doubt the leadership and prudence of the manager from whom they come.
   
   The reason I presented this example is to highlight not my singular authority or how singular authority may be executed, but rather to illustrate the onus a person (group) having authority to execute a given action has to refrain from taking it when there are real or probable deleterious consequences of doing so and those impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Or, to put it another way, when the "business case" for taking the action is weak.
2. Rant:
   I get chided here for writing longish posts. The fact of the matter is that when I write short well considered ones such as I did when presenting my initial observations about this matter of calling for the release of Nunes' memo, my remarks are met with all sorts of "stupid sh*t" objections rather than with members inclined to objecting bothering to confirm the veracity, probativity and plausibility of their basis(-es) for objecting. (And, no, my feelings aren't "hurt" by their doing so for if it happens enough, I'll ignore the member and having now awareness of their remarks, spend no time responding to them.)
   
   If one makes a brief conclusive comment or summary level set of conclusive comments borne of due consideration, folks try to poke holes in it due to its brevity. If one makes a relatively comprehensive comment that includes one's brief conclusion(s) and the points one considered in arriving at it, people attack the length of the post, or me for having posted a longish set of remarks. That's no way to have a mature discussion.
   
   And, no, I'm not of a mind to describe your comments to me in this discussion as "stupid sh*t." It's clear to me that you did read the document to which I linked and you did directly address the voting aspect of the matter by pointing out a scenario in which voting by the House Intel Cmte. might be required to release the memo.

Next you'll be C&Ping 100K word posts while you are sitting on a rotting stinking dead horse you don't have the intellectual courage/integrity to climb off of.
I feel sorry for you pal.

i don't know how you can attempt to read his shit, bullet points or not.

 

[dannyboys]

I have looked for Congressional rules/procedural documentation that indicates the declassification process for Congressional documents requires a vote of any sort. I have not found anything indicating that is the case. Perhaps by working together you will find it, and if you do, please share it with me. AFAIK, the only thing I'm aware of Congress voting on is legislation. [1] Everything else Congress does happens via a Congressional administrative action, and such actions need no vote.

Oh, come on, Congress-critters vote on a lot more than legislation, most of the time they vote on procedural matters.

But in the case of their own committee reports and memos like this one, I recall reading in numerous places that the committees have ultimate authority on what classification their own memos and reports have. I dont know how much influence the larger party leadership has on these votes, but I think that they are pretty much strictly committee votes on such things as it is their baby so to speak.

this is the most recent doc I can find on the topic and it is from 2007, so things may have changed some.

But essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

Any Congressional reports/memos that contain classified information are also classified, but may be released in redacted form with the executive branch sensitive information removed.

https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/pidb/meetings/06-22-07-carpenter.pdf

4: The Congressional Intelligence Committees The intelligence committees of the House and Senate have developed additional controls and procedures for handling classified records.
The rules of procedure of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence prescribe that the Staff Director of that committee maintain a registry of all classified documents in the possession of that office, that access to classified records to staff members be limited to those with the proper clearance and need-to-know, and that when making classified records available to a senator outside of the committee, that senator must be advised of the responsibility to protect those records, and that all such transmittals must be recorded by the Clerk of the Committee.25
The rules of procedure of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also specify that the Director of Security and Registry of that Committee keep a numbered registry of, “…all classified documents provided to the Committee by the Executive branch that remain in the possession of the Committee,” and establish control over the dissemination of classified information outside the Committee.26
As part of the oversight role of the committees, the rules of both the House and Senate committees specify that each committee, “…may disclose publicly any information in its possession after a determination by the Select Committee that the public interest would be served by such disclosure.”27
In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....
Conclusion: The enabling legislation of the Public Interest Declassification Board states that one of the purposes of the board is, “To promote the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant United States national security decisions and significant United States national security activities in order to: (A), support the oversight and legislative functions of Congress; (B), support the policymaking role of the Executive branch; (C), respond to the interest of the public in national security matters; and (D), promote reliable historical analysis and new avenues of historical study in national security matters.”31...
While the Office of Senate Security currently has strong procedures in place for the control of classified records and the rules of the House and Senate intelligence committees call for registers of classified documents to be kept, for decades the classified records of Congress were not systematically controlled, and the House security office, while promising, is not yet fully operational.
Furthermore, according to the staff of the Center for Legislative Archives, the congressional committees who handle the most classified 11 national security information do not routinely transfer their most sensitive records to the physical custody of the Center for preservation, description, and eventual access.32
The Public Interest Declassification Board is an appropriate advocate for an effective declassification program for the classified records of Congress to ensure the proper safeguarding of classified national security information and to promote the fullest documentary record of American history.​

The reference to the full chamber I think refers to the House or Senate, but only if the Committees decision to release the information is challenged by the President. How the committee reaches said decision is something unique to each committee but I think most of them use a majority yes/no vote.

First of all:

As per the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence rules of procedure. At the bottom of page 13, there is a Section, (f), headed "Requests by Members of Other Committees." That section does indeed stipulate that:

"The Committee shall consider each such request by non-Committee members at the earliest practicable opportunity. The Committee shall determine, by record vote, what action it deems appropriate in light of all of the circumstances of each request."​

The thing is, that has already happened, for the Nunes memo has been made available to the whole of the House.

Insofar as it has already happened, Rule 4 in section (f), "Chair and Ranking Member Consideration of Requests for Previously Granted Materials," takes effect. Rule 4 in Section (f) states that:

"If the Committee has granted a non-Committee member access to classified materials, the Chair and Ranking Member may jointly determine, in writing, what action they deem appropriate for subsequent requests for the same materials in the same Congress....If the Chair and Ranking Member are unable to reach a joint determination or if they refer a request to the Committee...Committee shall consider the request at the earliest practicable opportunity [by voting to determine what be the disposition of the request.]​

I do not know whether has been made a written request triggering Rule 4 in Section (f).

AFAIK, aside from an impeachment vote, there is no matter upon which House members vote that requires more than a simple majority for the matter/action in question to pass. It's my understanding that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (House Intel Cmte) of the 115th Congress has a four-member Republican majority. Because there is a four-person majority on that committee, if the Chair and Ranking Member differ on the matter of releasing to the public, fewer than all of the Republicans on the committee. That being so, brings me back to one of the requests I earlier made:

please share with us the House rule stipulating that House Intel Cmte. declassification votes require more than a simple majority to pass any or all motions to declassify a document.

That brings us back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it, be it by voting or by administrative decision, and then do so.​

Second:

essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

All well and good, but:

• the memo in question was written by Devin Nunes and sent to the POTUS,
• vote or no vote required, Republicans have a majority on the House Intel Cmte., and
• the POTUS can unilaterally declassify and release his copy of the memo and he, like Nunes, is a Republican.
  

  In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....

  Has Trump objected to the disclosure of the memo?

Those three facts bring me back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it and then do so.​

Third:

"Calling for" an action is what people/groups lacking formal power/authority to effect the called-for given action do. People/groups having the power/authority to effect the action simply perform the action if they are of a mind to do so. You will recall that my original remarks on this thread's topic had two key dimensions:

I just heard that Republicans are calling for the release of that memo that Devin Nunes wrote. Republicans control every branch and department of government. Why are calling for it it? They control everything; all they have to do is release it. They don't have to call for a damn thing.

• The GOP have all the power and authority they need to release Nunes' memo.
• Because they have the power/authority to do so, they have no need to call for releasing his memo.

Trump being POTUS, the nature of the the 115th Congress' (and the House Intel Cmte's) composition and the rules and procedures of the House Intel Cmte. show both my claims to be accurate. [2] Whether a vote is needed or isn't needed is irrelevant; Republicans have voting majorities throughout the House.​

Note:

1. For example, I am semi-retired yet I remain as the formal/official head of my practice unit; thus if I want to effect a policy or procedure that would be applicable to my unit, I simply order it be done, and that's that.
   
   As a practical matter, since I'm semi-retired, I solicit input from the person who'll replace me. I do so mainly because I'll be fully retired in less than two years, and there's little value, at this point in my tenure, derived by my implementing a policy (taking an action) that endures that long but that he doesn't feel is apt and would thus repeal. The cycle of enact and repeal for such a short period would do little but create some small measure of confusion, and, frankly, no measure of confusion created by senior principals, however small, bodes well for the coherent and efficient operation of my practice unit or the firm.
   
   There is also the matter that confusion created by principals at my level in an organization is little other than a clear sign of such principals' ineptitude as managers. Moreover, there is the "knock-on" effect whereby all such signs rightly give perspicacious subordinates and observers cause to doubt the leadership and prudence of the manager from whom they come.
   
   The reason I presented this example is to highlight not my singular authority or how singular authority may be executed, but rather to illustrate the onus a person (group) having authority to execute a given action has to refrain from taking it when there are real or probable deleterious consequences of doing so and those impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Or, to put it another way, when the "business case" for taking the action is weak.
2. Rant:
   I get chided here for writing longish posts. The fact of the matter is that when I write short well considered ones such as I did when presenting my initial observations about this matter of calling for the release of Nunes' memo, my remarks are met with all sorts of "stupid sh*t" objections rather than with members inclined to objecting bothering to confirm the veracity, probativity and plausibility of their basis(-es) for objecting. (And, no, my feelings aren't "hurt" by their doing so for if it happens enough, I'll ignore the member and having now awareness of their remarks, spend no time responding to them.)
   
   If one makes a brief conclusive comment or summary level set of conclusive comments borne of due consideration, folks try to poke holes in it due to its brevity. If one makes a relatively comprehensive comment that includes one's brief conclusion(s) and the points one considered in arriving at it, people attack the length of the post, or me for having posted a longish set of remarks. That's no way to have a mature discussion.
   
   And, no, I'm not of a mind to describe your comments to me in this discussion as "stupid sh*t." It's clear to me that you did read the document to which I linked and you did directly address the voting aspect of the matter by pointing out a scenario in which voting by the House Intel Cmte. might be required to release the memo.

Next you'll be C&Ping 100K word posts while you are sitting on a rotting stinking dead horse you don't have the intellectual courage/integrity to climb off of.
I feel sorry for you pal.

i don't know how you can attempt to read his shit, bullet points or not.

I never do. I know he's simply a guible LIB fool.
If you can't get say what you have to say in a few lines you've (he has) lost the argument.
Aside: Adam Schiff now claims that the American public should not see the classified documents b/c they are too stupid to understand them.
I guess that explains why only ONE DEM congressman has gone to read the documents. The rest of the DEMs are just too stupid to understand what's in the documents.
"I never read the documents so I can't voice an opinion on them. And besides our leader in the Trump witch hunt Adam Schiff told me I wouldn't understand them anyway".

 

[Care4all]

When every Republican Leader has read it and is demanding for it's release to the American public

I just heard that Republicans are calling for the release of that memo that Devin Nunes wrote. Republicans control every branch and department of government. Why are calling for it it? They control everything; all they have to do is release it. They don't have to call for a damn thing.

BINGO! they classified it, they can declassify it....

it's all the same game only reverse of what they did with the Fusion GPS testimony.... they made up a bi fat lie about the dossier and Steele, and could only tell the lies if they kept the GPS testimony from us....

now they are telling another one of their lies and claiming dems don't want it released, then they claimed democrats haven't read it.... who knows what they will lie about next???

from which side?

we've come to allow lies because we don't like the other side and they deserve it. so here's where we wind up collectively. we *all* need to stop this shit.

Can you point to the Democratic lies in this issue???

 

[iceberg]

When every Republican Leader has read it and is demanding for it's release to the American public

I just heard that Republicans are calling for the release of that memo that Devin Nunes wrote. Republicans control every branch and department of government. Why are calling for it it? They control everything; all they have to do is release it. They don't have to call for a damn thing.

BINGO! they classified it, they can declassify it....

it's all the same game only reverse of what they did with the Fusion GPS testimony.... they made up a bi fat lie about the dossier and Steele, and could only tell the lies if they kept the GPS testimony from us....

now they are telling another one of their lies and claiming dems don't want it released, then they claimed democrats haven't read it.... who knows what they will lie about next???

from which side?

we've come to allow lies because we don't like the other side and they deserve it. so here's where we wind up collectively. we *all* need to stop this shit.

Can you point to the Democratic lies in this issue???

i'm not about to get into the whole "in this issue"

when you delete 33k mails, there's reason to doubt.
when you hear of a memo that will take down the fbi and some key evidence is suddenly missing, there is reason to doubt.

i'm not going to get granular and find 1 area where they didn't lie or mislead so you can go AH HA! and blow off all the crap that is unfolding in front of our eyes because you don't seem to want to believe it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have looked for Congressional rules/procedural documentation that indicates the declassification process for Congressional documents requires a vote of any sort. I have not found anything indicating that is the case. Perhaps by working together you will find it, and if you do, please share it with me. AFAIK, the only thing I'm aware of Congress voting on is legislation. [1] Everything else Congress does happens via a Congressional administrative action, and such actions need no vote.

Oh, come on, Congress-critters vote on a lot more than legislation, most of the time they vote on procedural matters.

But in the case of their own committee reports and memos like this one, I recall reading in numerous places that the committees have ultimate authority on what classification their own memos and reports have. I dont know how much influence the larger party leadership has on these votes, but I think that they are pretty much strictly committee votes on such things as it is their baby so to speak.

this is the most recent doc I can find on the topic and it is from 2007, so things may have changed some.

But essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

Any Congressional reports/memos that contain classified information are also classified, but may be released in redacted form with the executive branch sensitive information removed.

https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/pidb/meetings/06-22-07-carpenter.pdf

4: The Congressional Intelligence Committees The intelligence committees of the House and Senate have developed additional controls and procedures for handling classified records.
The rules of procedure of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence prescribe that the Staff Director of that committee maintain a registry of all classified documents in the possession of that office, that access to classified records to staff members be limited to those with the proper clearance and need-to-know, and that when making classified records available to a senator outside of the committee, that senator must be advised of the responsibility to protect those records, and that all such transmittals must be recorded by the Clerk of the Committee.25
The rules of procedure of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also specify that the Director of Security and Registry of that Committee keep a numbered registry of, “…all classified documents provided to the Committee by the Executive branch that remain in the possession of the Committee,” and establish control over the dissemination of classified information outside the Committee.26
As part of the oversight role of the committees, the rules of both the House and Senate committees specify that each committee, “…may disclose publicly any information in its possession after a determination by the Select Committee that the public interest would be served by such disclosure.”27
In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....
Conclusion: The enabling legislation of the Public Interest Declassification Board states that one of the purposes of the board is, “To promote the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant United States national security decisions and significant United States national security activities in order to: (A), support the oversight and legislative functions of Congress; (B), support the policymaking role of the Executive branch; (C), respond to the interest of the public in national security matters; and (D), promote reliable historical analysis and new avenues of historical study in national security matters.”31...
While the Office of Senate Security currently has strong procedures in place for the control of classified records and the rules of the House and Senate intelligence committees call for registers of classified documents to be kept, for decades the classified records of Congress were not systematically controlled, and the House security office, while promising, is not yet fully operational.
Furthermore, according to the staff of the Center for Legislative Archives, the congressional committees who handle the most classified 11 national security information do not routinely transfer their most sensitive records to the physical custody of the Center for preservation, description, and eventual access.32
The Public Interest Declassification Board is an appropriate advocate for an effective declassification program for the classified records of Congress to ensure the proper safeguarding of classified national security information and to promote the fullest documentary record of American history.​

The reference to the full chamber I think refers to the House or Senate, but only if the Committees decision to release the information is challenged by the President. How the committee reaches said decision is something unique to each committee but I think most of them use a majority yes/no vote.

First of all:

As per the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence rules of procedure. At the bottom of page 13, there is a Section, (f), headed "Requests by Members of Other Committees." That section does indeed stipulate that:

"The Committee shall consider each such request by non-Committee members at the earliest practicable opportunity. The Committee shall determine, by record vote, what action it deems appropriate in light of all of the circumstances of each request."​

The thing is, that has already happened, for the Nunes memo has been made available to the whole of the House.

Insofar as it has already happened, Rule 4 in section (f), "Chair and Ranking Member Consideration of Requests for Previously Granted Materials," takes effect. Rule 4 in Section (f) states that:

"If the Committee has granted a non-Committee member access to classified materials, the Chair and Ranking Member may jointly determine, in writing, what action they deem appropriate for subsequent requests for the same materials in the same Congress....If the Chair and Ranking Member are unable to reach a joint determination or if they refer a request to the Committee...Committee shall consider the request at the earliest practicable opportunity [by voting to determine what be the disposition of the request.]​

I do not know whether has been made a written request triggering Rule 4 in Section (f).

AFAIK, aside from an impeachment vote, there is no matter upon which House members vote that requires more than a simple majority for the matter/action in question to pass. It's my understanding that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (House Intel Cmte) of the 115th Congress has a four-member Republican majority. Because there is a four-person majority on that committee, if the Chair and Ranking Member differ on the matter of releasing to the public, fewer than all of the Republicans on the committee. That being so, brings me back to one of the requests I earlier made:

please share with us the House rule stipulating that House Intel Cmte. declassification votes require more than a simple majority to pass any or all motions to declassify a document.

That brings us back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it, be it by voting or by administrative decision, and then do so.​

Second:

essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

All well and good, but:

• the memo in question was written by Devin Nunes and sent to the POTUS,
• vote or no vote required, Republicans have a majority on the House Intel Cmte., and
• the POTUS can unilaterally declassify and release his copy of the memo and he, like Nunes, is a Republican.
  

  In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....

  Has Trump objected to the disclosure of the memo?

Those three facts bring me back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it and then do so.​

Third:

"Calling for" an action is what people/groups lacking formal power/authority to effect the called-for given action do. People/groups having the power/authority to effect the action simply perform the action if they are of a mind to do so. You will recall that my original remarks on this thread's topic had two key dimensions:

I just heard that Republicans are calling for the release of that memo that Devin Nunes wrote. Republicans control every branch and department of government. Why are calling for it it? They control everything; all they have to do is release it. They don't have to call for a damn thing.

• The GOP have all the power and authority they need to release Nunes' memo.
• Because they have the power/authority to do so, they have no need to call for releasing his memo.

Trump being POTUS, the nature of the the 115th Congress' (and the House Intel Cmte's) composition and the rules and procedures of the House Intel Cmte. show both my claims to be accurate. [2] Whether a vote is needed or isn't needed is irrelevant; Republicans have voting majorities throughout the House.​

Note:

1. For example, I am semi-retired yet I remain as the formal/official head of my practice unit; thus if I want to effect a policy or procedure that would be applicable to my unit, I simply order it be done, and that's that.
   
   As a practical matter, since I'm semi-retired, I solicit input from the person who'll replace me. I do so mainly because I'll be fully retired in less than two years, and there's little value, at this point in my tenure, derived by my implementing a policy (taking an action) that endures that long but that he doesn't feel is apt and would thus repeal. The cycle of enact and repeal for such a short period would do little but create some small measure of confusion, and, frankly, no measure of confusion created by senior principals, however small, bodes well for the coherent and efficient operation of my practice unit or the firm.
   
   There is also the matter that confusion created by principals at my level in an organization is little other than a clear sign of such principals' ineptitude as managers. Moreover, there is the "knock-on" effect whereby all such signs rightly give perspicacious subordinates and observers cause to doubt the leadership and prudence of the manager from whom they come.
   
   The reason I presented this example is to highlight not my singular authority or how singular authority may be executed, but rather to illustrate the onus a person (group) having authority to execute a given action has to refrain from taking it when there are real or probable deleterious consequences of doing so and those impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Or, to put it another way, when the "business case" for taking the action is weak.
2. Rant:
   I get chided here for writing longish posts. The fact of the matter is that when I write short well considered ones such as I did when presenting my initial observations about this matter of calling for the release of Nunes' memo, my remarks are met with all sorts of "stupid sh*t" objections rather than with members inclined to objecting bothering to confirm the veracity, probativity and plausibility of their basis(-es) for objecting. (And, no, my feelings aren't "hurt" by their doing so for if it happens enough, I'll ignore the member and having now awareness of their remarks, spend no time responding to them.)
   
   If one makes a brief conclusive comment or summary level set of conclusive comments borne of due consideration, folks try to poke holes in it due to its brevity. If one makes a relatively comprehensive comment that includes one's brief conclusion(s) and the points one considered in arriving at it, people attack the length of the post, or me for having posted a longish set of remarks. That's no way to have a mature discussion.
   
   And, no, I'm not of a mind to describe your comments to me in this discussion as "stupid sh*t." It's clear to me that you did read the document to which I linked and you did directly address the voting aspect of the matter by pointing out a scenario in which voting by the House Intel Cmte. might be required to release the memo.

I agree with all this Xelor, but from the time I was first calling for the memo to be released and now, it was approved for release I believe. I dont know what the vote was, but it was probably along party lines. In fact I posted about it being released a few days ago.

This is kind of an old thread now.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have looked for Congressional rules/procedural documentation that indicates the declassification process for Congressional documents requires a vote of any sort. I have not found anything indicating that is the case. Perhaps by working together you will find it, and if you do, please share it with me. AFAIK, the only thing I'm aware of Congress voting on is legislation. [1] Everything else Congress does happens via a Congressional administrative action, and such actions need no vote.

Oh, come on, Congress-critters vote on a lot more than legislation, most of the time they vote on procedural matters.

But in the case of their own committee reports and memos like this one, I recall reading in numerous places that the committees have ultimate authority on what classification their own memos and reports have. I dont know how much influence the larger party leadership has on these votes, but I think that they are pretty much strictly committee votes on such things as it is their baby so to speak.

this is the most recent doc I can find on the topic and it is from 2007, so things may have changed some.

But essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

Any Congressional reports/memos that contain classified information are also classified, but may be released in redacted form with the executive branch sensitive information removed.

https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/pidb/meetings/06-22-07-carpenter.pdf

4: The Congressional Intelligence Committees The intelligence committees of the House and Senate have developed additional controls and procedures for handling classified records.
The rules of procedure of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence prescribe that the Staff Director of that committee maintain a registry of all classified documents in the possession of that office, that access to classified records to staff members be limited to those with the proper clearance and need-to-know, and that when making classified records available to a senator outside of the committee, that senator must be advised of the responsibility to protect those records, and that all such transmittals must be recorded by the Clerk of the Committee.25
The rules of procedure of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also specify that the Director of Security and Registry of that Committee keep a numbered registry of, “…all classified documents provided to the Committee by the Executive branch that remain in the possession of the Committee,” and establish control over the dissemination of classified information outside the Committee.26
As part of the oversight role of the committees, the rules of both the House and Senate committees specify that each committee, “…may disclose publicly any information in its possession after a determination by the Select Committee that the public interest would be served by such disclosure.”27
In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....
Conclusion: The enabling legislation of the Public Interest Declassification Board states that one of the purposes of the board is, “To promote the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant United States national security decisions and significant United States national security activities in order to: (A), support the oversight and legislative functions of Congress; (B), support the policymaking role of the Executive branch; (C), respond to the interest of the public in national security matters; and (D), promote reliable historical analysis and new avenues of historical study in national security matters.”31...
While the Office of Senate Security currently has strong procedures in place for the control of classified records and the rules of the House and Senate intelligence committees call for registers of classified documents to be kept, for decades the classified records of Congress were not systematically controlled, and the House security office, while promising, is not yet fully operational.
Furthermore, according to the staff of the Center for Legislative Archives, the congressional committees who handle the most classified 11 national security information do not routinely transfer their most sensitive records to the physical custody of the Center for preservation, description, and eventual access.32
The Public Interest Declassification Board is an appropriate advocate for an effective declassification program for the classified records of Congress to ensure the proper safeguarding of classified national security information and to promote the fullest documentary record of American history.​

The reference to the full chamber I think refers to the House or Senate, but only if the Committees decision to release the information is challenged by the President. How the committee reaches said decision is something unique to each committee but I think most of them use a majority yes/no vote.

First of all:

As per the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence rules of procedure. At the bottom of page 13, there is a Section, (f), headed "Requests by Members of Other Committees." That section does indeed stipulate that:

"The Committee shall consider each such request by non-Committee members at the earliest practicable opportunity. The Committee shall determine, by record vote, what action it deems appropriate in light of all of the circumstances of each request."​

The thing is, that has already happened, for the Nunes memo has been made available to the whole of the House.

Insofar as it has already happened, Rule 4 in section (f), "Chair and Ranking Member Consideration of Requests for Previously Granted Materials," takes effect. Rule 4 in Section (f) states that:

"If the Committee has granted a non-Committee member access to classified materials, the Chair and Ranking Member may jointly determine, in writing, what action they deem appropriate for subsequent requests for the same materials in the same Congress....If the Chair and Ranking Member are unable to reach a joint determination or if they refer a request to the Committee...Committee shall consider the request at the earliest practicable opportunity [by voting to determine what be the disposition of the request.]​

I do not know whether has been made a written request triggering Rule 4 in Section (f).

AFAIK, aside from an impeachment vote, there is no matter upon which House members vote that requires more than a simple majority for the matter/action in question to pass. It's my understanding that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (House Intel Cmte) of the 115th Congress has a four-member Republican majority. Because there is a four-person majority on that committee, if the Chair and Ranking Member differ on the matter of releasing to the public, fewer than all of the Republicans on the committee. That being so, brings me back to one of the requests I earlier made:

please share with us the House rule stipulating that House Intel Cmte. declassification votes require more than a simple majority to pass any or all motions to declassify a document.

That brings us back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it, be it by voting or by administrative decision, and then do so.​

Second:

essentially documents from the executive branch, the executive branch has control of and only the appropriate offices, to include the President, may declassify information it shares with Congress.

All well and good, but:

• the memo in question was written by Devin Nunes and sent to the POTUS,
• vote or no vote required, Republicans have a majority on the House Intel Cmte., and
• the POTUS can unilaterally declassify and release his copy of the memo and he, like Nunes, is a Republican.
  

  In cases where the President objects to the disclosure of classified information, the rules of the committees specify procedures for referring the issue to a closed session of the full chamber followed by a yes or no vote with no open debate.....

  Has Trump objected to the disclosure of the memo?

Those three facts bring me back to my original point: Republicans don't need to call for a damn thing as goes the release of the memo. They need only talk amongst themselves, decide to release it and then do so.​

Third:

"Calling for" an action is what people/groups lacking formal power/authority to effect the called-for given action do. People/groups having the power/authority to effect the action simply perform the action if they are of a mind to do so. You will recall that my original remarks on this thread's topic had two key dimensions:

I just heard that Republicans are calling for the release of that memo that Devin Nunes wrote. Republicans control every branch and department of government. Why are calling for it it? They control everything; all they have to do is release it. They don't have to call for a damn thing.

• The GOP have all the power and authority they need to release Nunes' memo.
• Because they have the power/authority to do so, they have no need to call for releasing his memo.

Trump being POTUS, the nature of the the 115th Congress' (and the House Intel Cmte's) composition and the rules and procedures of the House Intel Cmte. show both my claims to be accurate. [2] Whether a vote is needed or isn't needed is irrelevant; Republicans have voting majorities throughout the House.​

Note:

1. For example, I am semi-retired yet I remain as the formal/official head of my practice unit; thus if I want to effect a policy or procedure that would be applicable to my unit, I simply order it be done, and that's that.
   
   As a practical matter, since I'm semi-retired, I solicit input from the person who'll replace me. I do so mainly because I'll be fully retired in less than two years, and there's little value, at this point in my tenure, derived by my implementing a policy (taking an action) that endures that long but that he doesn't feel is apt and would thus repeal. The cycle of enact and repeal for such a short period would do little but create some small measure of confusion, and, frankly, no measure of confusion created by senior principals, however small, bodes well for the coherent and efficient operation of my practice unit or the firm.
   
   There is also the matter that confusion created by principals at my level in an organization is little other than a clear sign of such principals' ineptitude as managers. Moreover, there is the "knock-on" effect whereby all such signs rightly give perspicacious subordinates and observers cause to doubt the leadership and prudence of the manager from whom they come.
   
   The reason I presented this example is to highlight not my singular authority or how singular authority may be executed, but rather to illustrate the onus a person (group) having authority to execute a given action has to refrain from taking it when there are real or probable deleterious consequences of doing so and those impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Or, to put it another way, when the "business case" for taking the action is weak.
2. Rant:
   I get chided here for writing longish posts. The fact of the matter is that when I write short well considered ones such as I did when presenting my initial observations about this matter of calling for the release of Nunes' memo, my remarks are met with all sorts of "stupid sh*t" objections rather than with members inclined to objecting bothering to confirm the veracity, probativity and plausibility of their basis(-es) for objecting. (And, no, my feelings aren't "hurt" by their doing so for if it happens enough, I'll ignore the member and having now awareness of their remarks, spend no time responding to them.)
   
   If one makes a brief conclusive comment or summary level set of conclusive comments borne of due consideration, folks try to poke holes in it due to its brevity. If one makes a relatively comprehensive comment that includes one's brief conclusion(s) and the points one considered in arriving at it, people attack the length of the post, or me for having posted a longish set of remarks. That's no way to have a mature discussion.
   
   And, no, I'm not of a mind to describe your comments to me in this discussion as "stupid sh*t." It's clear to me that you did read the document to which I linked and you did directly address the voting aspect of the matter by pointing out a scenario in which voting by the House Intel Cmte. might be required to release the memo.

I agree with all this Xelor, but from the time I was first calling for the memo to be released and now, it was approved for release I believe. I dont know what the vote was, but it was probably along party lines. In fact I posted about it being released a few days ago.

This is kind of an old thread now.

from the time I was first calling for the memo to be released and now, it was approved for release I believe.

Do you mean released to the general public or released to the whole of the House? I'm aware of the latter happening, but not at all the former.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do you mean released to the general public or released to the whole of the House? I'm aware of the latter happening, but not at all the former.

They voted to release it to the general public after a few more weeks to presumably redact the memo and go back and forth with the Executive branch on what has to be redacted, etc.

I think it was released to the House weeks ago or more. The move to release it to the public was what was ginning up the heat.

 

[Faun]

Oh the noble seekers of Truth, those Democrats. That is unless the Truth unmasks the blatant abuse of power by Democratic Leadership from Obama on down the line. When every Republican Leader has read it and is demanding for it's release to the American public and every Democratic Leader is AFRAID to even READ the darn thing, what does that tell you? Trouble in River City for Obama, FBI, NSA, IRS, CIA let's go! It's time clean out the septic tank it really smells.

This is a Devin Nunes document. I won’t be surprised if it never gets released to the public, at least in its entirety, under the guise that it’s contents are too highly sensitive.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Oh the noble seekers of Truth, those Democrats. That is unless the Truth unmasks the blatant abuse of power by Democratic Leadership from Obama on down the line. When every Republican Leader has read it and is demanding for it's release to the American public and every Democratic Leader is AFRAID to even READ the darn thing, what does that tell you? Trouble in River City for Obama, FBI, NSA, IRS, CIA let's go! It's time clean out the septic tank it really smells.

This is a Devin Nunes document. I won’t be surprised if it never gets released to the public, at least in its entirety, under the guise that it’s contents are too highly sensitive.

It will serve its purpose, which is to expose the corruption in the highest levels of government.

 

[Faun]

Oh the noble seekers of Truth, those Democrats. That is unless the Truth unmasks the blatant abuse of power by Democratic Leadership from Obama on down the line. When every Republican Leader has read it and is demanding for it's release to the American public and every Democratic Leader is AFRAID to even READ the darn thing, what does that tell you? Trouble in River City for Obama, FBI, NSA, IRS, CIA let's go! It's time clean out the septic tank it really smells.

This is a Devin Nunes document. I won’t be surprised if it never gets released to the public, at least in its entirety, under the guise that it’s contents are too highly sensitive.

It will serve its purpose, which is to expose the corruption in the highest levels of government.

It won’t serve any purpose if this turns out to be nothing but another Nunes ploy to get his own unverifiable positions compiled into a document. Even worse for the rightwing, if it turns out he collaborated with the White House to manufacture nonsense, like he was caught doing last year — leading to him having to step down from his leadership role in that investigation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It will serve its purpose, which is to expose the corruption in the highest levels of government.

Well, the Nunez version of it anyway.