Scooter just ought to squeal and squeal and squeal as to where the corruption is in the Administration. After all, like Brownie, they have hung him out to dry. Why should he remain loyal.
Go Squealer Libby!
Posted by JWP at April 7, 2006 11:16 AMUh Oh.
Posted by God Of War at April 7, 2006 11:36 AMLibby may get more than his leg broken this time.
Posted by goose1 at April 7, 2006 11:39 AMOnce they start parsing, they are treading on Bill Clinton territory. When Clinton parsed, it was called lying and led to impeachment by the GOP. When Bush does the same thing - but with national security at stake (not his marriage) , lets count the days until the GOP congress starts impeachment hearings........sure.
Posted by T2 at April 7, 2006 11:43 AMWhats amazing is that they obviously didn't look at their own image or simply ignored the third and most obvious expanation to why the White House isn't challenging the filing...
The President authorizing the release of information isn't illegal.
Trackback!
The President authorizing the release of information isn't illegal.
Having a staff person leak classified information and then declassifying it is quite a bit different.
Posted by ann at April 7, 2006 11:57 AMPresident Bush is not so foolish as to play into the liberals' hands. If he denies it, you say he is lying. If you says nothing, you say he is hiding. Nothing he does will make you happy, so why should he try to act to appease those who are against him no matter what he does?
Posted by shoelimpy at April 7, 2006 11:59 AMNYTimes:
McClellan volunteered that the administration declassified information from the intelligence report -- the National Intelligence Estimate -- and released it to the public on July 18, 2003. But he refused to say when the information was actually declassified.
On July 18, 2003, McClellan said that the information had been declassified that day. ''It was officially declassified today,'' he told reporters in a briefing in Dallas, Texas. At the White House on Friday, McClellan interpreted his own remarks to mean that the information had been officially released to the public.
The date could be significant because Libby discussed the information with a reporter 10 days earlier, on July 8 of that year.
You don't get it... do you Ann?
According to constitutional authority.. the President can authorizes classified information to be released and legally it is no longer classified. According to Presidential precedent that goes back over 20 years, a President doesn't even have to 'officially' declassify something with any paperwork, he can just 'declare' it so by authorizing the information to be released.
That is why the picture states "Experts: not illegal" - (With all due respect to Steve Soto) Mr Soto may be a reasonably entertaining blogger but he is obviously not a constitutional or legal expert in this matter.
Posted by CH Truth at April 7, 2006 12:06 PMCH Truth, when did Bush decide to declassify this information?
Shoelimpy, I'm still waiting for you to tell me where the McCain-Kennedy bill granted amnesty to anyone?
Posted by Steve Soto at April 7, 2006 12:10 PMit wasn't declassified until 10 days later. bush leaked classified information. hang him.
Posted by at April 7, 2006 12:13 PMCH, please see above from the NY Times. The information was leaked before Bush declassified it. Therefore, and I know following logic isn't your strong suit, classified information was leaked.
Posted by ann at April 7, 2006 12:14 PMTruth, How do we know when Bush Declassified it, If he can just say Declassified and Poof!!! it is. What you don't get is that there is a process to follow and Bush did not follow it.
Oh what make you the legal expert?
Posted by Goose1 at April 7, 2006 12:15 PMif the president does it, it's legal.
Posted by nixon at April 7, 2006 12:15 PMStv, CH's pnt s jst s Trmn sttd: 'th bck stps hr.' Ths s th ntr rgmnt fr cvln wrtppng, tc., ll bsd pn prcdnt plcs nd prcdrs prvdng Prsdntl lphls nd wggl rm. Th bv gns wght wth th 'wr n trrr' rwlln fctr.
nyhw, t rg dys, hrs, mnts, scnds, tc. mrly gvs smmry jdgmnt mtn wght n crt; nd crt pckd wth Crprt lts nd Dps. Th smmry jdgmnt wld ncld th rdcl f splttng hrs.
My qstn s, ws ths ffr plnnd, nd f s, wht s th mtvtn.
[Editor: ignore=off]OK, just assume for argument sake that Bush authorized it and that makes it legal. If so, then why did Bush make Libby suffer an indictmenent that forced him to resign and pay huge legal bills?
If I were Scooter and unless there was some promise of pay-off out there to be quiet, I would be really, really pissed.
Is Bush such a coward that he simply could not tell Fitzgerald that Libby was acting according to orders?
Posted by JWP at April 7, 2006 12:30 PMIf so, then why did Bush make Libby suffer an indictmenent that forced him to resign and pay huge legal bills?
Psst: because they made the rationale up afterwards.
Posted by ann at April 7, 2006 12:38 PMPsst: because they made the rationale up afterwards.
Ann, expand on your comment a little.
Was Bush so rattled by Fitzgerald that he did not know he could stop the whole thing just by saying Libby acted on orders?
Posted by at April 7, 2006 12:45 PMWhat did bush tell Fitz when interviewed? If it differs from what Libby says is it Obsruction of Justice (I don't think he was under oath so no perjury)
Posted by Goose1 at April 7, 2006 12:47 PManon, not sure I can expand much. I find it par for the course with these guys that whenever they're caught doing something at all questionable, they come up with some kind of excuse after the fact.
look at the NSA scandal. If it was legal for Bush to authorize warrantless wiretaps, then why did they seek to have the FISA laws expanded in 2002? they didn't claim Bush could authorize unwarrantless wiretaps until the truth was exposed that they were already spying on Americans.
in this case, details that they thought they could avoid have come out and now they've got to come up with an excuse for why they've done nothing wrong. what easier excuse is there than to claim they had declassified the information so there was no leak?
it reminds me of a guy I work with. whenever he screws something up, instead of admitting he screwed up, he comes up with some bs story about how someone else screwed up, he didn't.
Posted by ann at April 7, 2006 01:07 PMcan he declassify something, tell the media,then reclassify the same information? cause maybe that's what happened (and than 10 days later re-declassify it). nothing too clintonian about that. nope, not at all.
Posted by benjoya at April 7, 2006 01:16 PMbenjoya, another question would be is it really declassified if only Bush, Cheney and Libby say so?
Posted by goose1 at April 7, 2006 01:21 PMAll of legalities aside, Why did Bush screw Libby and let him be indicted?
Posted by JWP at April 7, 2006 01:29 PMThere is no connection between why Libby was indicted and this information. Fitzgerald is just off on another tangent 'gathering information' without a clue or care if anything he is investigating is in fact a crime... The man has admitted as much in the past. He claims that it is his job to 'gather information first' and determine later if anything is a crime. Kind of back asswards if you ask me... but then again that is just me. love him or hate him... at least Ken Starr got convictions. 30+ in fact. He didn't just dink around investigating without a cause to believe a crime has been committed. Fitzgerald is becoming a dufus.
Also.. the President didn't 'allow' Libby to become indicted and this particular part of the Libby testimoney has nothing to do with the indictment of perjury charges. Libby was indicted because he has a different account of conversations he had with Reporters, not because of any conservations with the President.
Steve...
The President declassifies information specifically when he authorizes it to be released. It's pretty simple. If he 'authorized' Libby or anyone else to release information, then that information is officially declassified. That's the way it works. That's why your image on the post says "Experts: not illegal" - This whole thing is an exercise in ridiculous behavior.
Posted by CH Truth at April 7, 2006 01:48 PMOh for Christ's sake.
Doesn't just everybody know that those cocksuckers, W, Dick, Rove, Libby, and the rest, sat around and conspired to ratfuck Wilson?
Jesus, if anyone didn't know that right after her name was leaked you are not very fucking smart.
Posted by angryspittle at April 7, 2006 01:58 PMThe President declassifies information specifically when he authorizes it to be released. It's pretty simple. If he 'authorized' Libby or anyone else to release information, then that information is officially declassified.
You a big expert on classification and executive power?
Posted by dj moonbat at April 7, 2006 02:00 PMTo the wingnuts sitting around trying to justify the actions of this administration? Wether you think he outed Plame or even if the act was criminal the fact remains that Bush is a bald faced liar!
“If There Is A Leak Out Of My Administration, I Want To Know Who It Is. And If The Person Has Violated Law, The Person Will Be Taken Care Of”... (9/30/03)
George W. Bush
------------GET IT!
You a big expert on classification and executive power?
Look at the picture at the head of this post.
Notice the "Experts: Not Illegal" deal?
I am not an expert on constitutional law or exectutive powers. But I am smart enough to listen to those who are experts in those areas rather than listen to the NY Times editorial staff....
Posted by CH Truth at April 7, 2006 02:10 PMwhether Bush has the legal right to declassify is not the issue here. It is 1) that he did it for political, not security related reasons and 2) he lied straight to the American people when he said he had no idea how this leaked.
Posted by T2 at April 7, 2006 02:17 PMNotice the "Experts: Not Illegal" deal?
I see you've done a lot of thinking about this issue.
At any rate, it's possible—hell, I'll even say "likely"—that what Bush did wasn't illegal. But it certainly wasn't consistent with the administration's claims, particularly its later claims, about how they dealt with leaks of classified information.
They have been lying their proverbial asses off about this matter, and they've been caught.
Posted by dj moonbat at April 7, 2006 02:20 PMTruth, Then you must think Bush broke the law with the NSA wiretaps because all the legal experts have said he did.
Look CH Truth Is for impeachment!!!!
Posted by goose1 at April 7, 2006 02:21 PMagain... T2... you are missing the whole deal.
The leak in question that the President originally talked about was the Valarie Plame leak. There is no indication that Libby got authorized by the President to talk about Plame at all.. in fact, the opposite has been suggested. Either you are confused about what 'constitutes' a leak or what leak the President was talking about.
Also... keep in mind that at the time of the President's statements it was widely held believe that Valarie Plame was a covert agent at the time and that the leak was actually a criminal act. We now know that that whole implication by the CIA, Wilson, and Plame was completely out of context.
Posted by CH Truth at April 7, 2006 02:25 PMAcually Goose... you need to do your homework.
Most legal experts in the area (Including the FISA judges themselves) do not think that the NSA wiretap program is illegal. NY Times editorial staffs and 2008 presidential hopefuls are not the 'experts' in the area.
Posted by CH Truth at April 7, 2006 02:27 PMMost legal experts in the area (Including the FISA judges themselves) do not think that the NSA wiretap program is illegal.
Uh-huh. Citations, please.
Posted by dj moonbat at April 7, 2006 02:30 PMhere was the latest from the NSA hearings just over a week ago, moonbat:
A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
Please don't tell me that you missed it?
You could also look up Sealed Case No. 02-001 from the FISA appeals court and find this:
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
There are two examples of the FISA courts warning that they do not have inherent authority over the executive branches constitutional power. Funny that the Judges on the court themselves would disagree with those who say that the President is breaking the law?
Now... one of those hypothetical questions. If the NSA program is really illegal... why is it still going on as we speak?
Posted by CH Truth at April 7, 2006 02:40 PMCH - you need some grammar lessons- are you in jr. high?
Posted by T2 at April 7, 2006 02:43 PMIf the NSA program is really illegal... why is it still going on as we speak?
Arrogance and hubris.
If the President always had the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps, why did he seek to have the FISA law changed in 2002?
Posted by ann at April 7, 2006 03:02 PMLibby may get more than his leg broken this time.
Yeah, like shot in the face!
Posted by bbtb at April 7, 2006 03:08 PMA good point from Andrew Sullivan:
a matter of character and honor
Now about bring honesty and integrity to the White House.....I guess that was all part of the pre-9/11 mentality.
Posted by ann at April 7, 2006 03:13 PMThe Truong argument is irrelevant as it was dealt with prior to FISA enactment in 1978:
“Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance… it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute…”
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html
Your last quote conveniently left off the following sentence:
"FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse…"
IOW, the court deciding whether FISA imposes limits on the President's authority was not the issue in the case cited. It was an issue in the Truong case PRE-FISA, but we see the court explains, "the question before us is the reverse."
In regards to the 5 FISA judges discussion on March 29th, we can all do selective quoting as well. You liked the WaPost article, well I guess we can pull out the NYTimes version:
Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.
They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/politics/29nsa.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Keep in mind what that panel was about - those judges were there to testify about FISA and on the merits of Senator Specter's proposed amendment to FISA. It seemed pretty clear they wanted Congress and the courts to keep their respective roles on this issue, and that if Bush circumvents the FISA courts he would face Congress and the Supreme Court "at his own peril". It was pretty clear they supported Specter's bill over DeWine's bill, which if DeWine had his way would severely ease the restrictions of the FISA courts on presidential power (or to truthful, it would pretty much render FISA outright useless).
I realize Powerline and some others took some phrases from the Judges and attempted to demonstrate their point that Bush doesn't need to give a shit about Congress. Let me throw some other quotes out as well:
Judge Stafford:
As I approach my 75th birthday, it remains my belief that our nation is really held together by a couple pieces of paper -- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- and the belief of the American people that our system of government works. FISA was created by Congress to clarify that the president had the authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance, but that the president would do so through a court composed of judges who had been nominated for lifetime appointments by a president and confirmed by the Senate as provided in Article III of the Constitution. This arrangement seems to have worked well for everyone.
Judge Kornblum (one of Hindraker's favorites):
I would also reiterate that the president doesn't have a carte blanche, that the courts are the arm of government that determines what the president's constitutional authority is.
...The presidential authority that is being used today is being used unilaterally. I think all of the judges agree with me that when the president operates unilaterally, his power is at its lowest ebb, as has been mentioned in judicial decisions.
...But when Congress passes a law, such as one authorizing the surveillance program targeting communications networks -- when the Congress does that and the judiciary has a role in overseeing it, well then the executive branch's authority is at its maximum. What that means is they can do things, I believe, under an amended FISA statute that they cannot do now.
So the sword can cut both ways, depending on which quote you wish to cite.
In any case, the question that remains unanswered is not one of legality, but of ethical and character concern:
If indeed it is shown that Bush has the capability to declassify things on the spot (which I have yet to see any verifiable evidence of such power, but I'll concede this for the sake of argument), and he indeed declassified the NIE to Cheney to pass down to Libby -
why the hell would he do that? What on earth is the necessity to pass down such formerly classified information to expose a covert CIA agent who's sole job is to find international WMD proliferation? Wasn't Plame the very tool which Bush supposedly regards as vital to fighting the war on terrorism?
And it does remain to be seen as to when he may have declassified information - was it on the 18th or the 8th of June? If it was the 18th, is McClellan then lying?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at April 7, 2006 03:19 PMBush lied, people died...what else is he lying about?
(hint: whenever his lips are moving)
Posted by DW at April 7, 2006 03:24 PMMy understanding is that if classified information is declassified, there has to be a process involving paperwork. Ok Bush, produce the paperwork.
Posted by Judith at April 7, 2006 03:39 PMThey just abandoned Scooter. He oughter Squeal!
Wouldn't that be fun!
Posted by JWP at April 7, 2006 03:39 PMHmmm, just ran across another interesting quote from our dear Judge Kornblum:
''I am very wary of inherent authority'' claimed by presidents, testified U.S. Magistrate Judge Allan Kornblum. ''It sounds very much like King George.''
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3649444?source=rss
Hmm, sure doesn't sound like they endorse Bush's actions to me. I tend to wonder how the WaTimes and WaPost interpreted things...
Posted by MisterOpus1 at April 7, 2006 03:41 PMOh, MisterOpus, the things you say! Nicely done.
Posted by ann at April 7, 2006 03:42 PMIf the NSA program is really illegal... why is it still going on as we speak?
It and more is going on [probably including monitoring this threat and tagging it to our IPs] because they CAN do it.
It seems abundantly clear now that Bush has the freedom to do it. One has "freedom" when one can do what one likes and make rules to make it legal without relying on any other authority. Congress is afraid to stand up because its called "Terrorist Surveilence" and we, as a People are basically cowards. We cannot see that this is not surveilence primarily aimed at terrorists, it is surveilence as a proof of the "I can do it." statement of raw power. We are willing to escape our freedom for the false god of security.
Bush had freedom because we, the People, Congress, and the Courts give it to him.
Watch your back!
We all know that these fucking trolls would be calling for 'a head on a platter' if it had been a Democrat. In their world, Bush can do no wrong, even if it is illegal, corrupt, fraudulent, etc. These pansey asses don't even have the balls to stand up when their pResident does something wrong or illegal.
Posted by Judith at April 7, 2006 03:57 PMIt and more is going on [probably including monitoring this threat and tagging it to our IPs] because they CAN do it.
Speaking the truth and discussing the foibles of Bush is seen by them as a threat to their power. You can be assured that Homeland Security, the FBI, or NSA is logging all critics for later reference. There is a long history in the US for monitoring dissenters.
The do it because they
This is a period of extreme danger to our Republic and to our freedoms.
Posted by JWP at April 7, 2006 04:00 PMThe FISA judges specifically testified that they were NOT going to advance an opinion on the legality of Nero Jr.'s wiretapping scheme. Obviously, because they aren't going to gratuitously issue advisory opinions.
The mainline press accounts do not contest this. Check out Greenwald's post on the testimony.
Cod Head's "interpretations" about the judges upholding Nero's "constitutional powers" are fantasies from Right Wing internet shit-troughs (his exclusive feeding grounds) which willfully misinterpreted the judges' testimony.
He is an utter fool, jumping about in his GOP clown suit, fatuously defending the breaking of law after law by his Dear Leader. Now THAT'S a cultist. Where will such a creature be in 5 years? How much more damaged and inoperative can his brain become? I suppose as his brain deteriorates he becomes even more valuable to the Brownshirt & Crucifix party.
Posted by euzoius at April 7, 2006 04:09 PMThey wiretap because they can. They do signing statements to prove they can do whatever they wish despite clear legislation.
Consider this when discussing "Inherent Authority."
When the Constitution was written, it had a tremendous amount of "inherent authority" The Framers knew this and realized it could not pass with such unlimited authority over the individual. The Bill of Rights amended that authority and guaranteed rights to the individual citizens. The Fourth Amendment limited executive power to search on a whim and subjected it explicitely to the warrant requirement. This should be a simple concept.
I cannot understand why we as a People seem to have forgotten that the "Inherent Authority" under Article II is limited by the defined rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights, an amendment which, under standard rules of construction, should limit the "Inherent Authority" under Article II.
Perhaps we have fail to read our own Declaration of Independence which condemns unreasonable searches and relies upon such as a basis for independence from King George.
Posted by JWP at April 7, 2006 04:20 PMJuly 18th, 2003 White House Press Briefing with Scott:
Q Why, Scott, was the cable that was -- that derived from the debriefing of Joe Wilson not included among the declassified documents?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we always want to share as much information as we can. There is some classified information that -- well, there's some information that remains classified for national security reasons. But we felt that this information -- which is what the State of the Union statement was originally based on -- was important to share with the American people, because it could be declassified.
Q When was it actually declassified?
MR. McCLELLAN: It was officially declassified today.
July 11th White House press briefing with Condi:
Q Is there a chance that that particular citation could be declassified, so we could see it?
DR. RICE: You know, we don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification, but we're looking at what can be made available.
They do wiretap. Thanks to dailykos reference to Wired
Posted by JWP at April 7, 2006 04:37 PM"Heh, heh... I tried that one in season ten, and Marge caught me in two hours..Doh!!" - Homer Simpson, People Magazine, April edition.
Posted by tempus at April 7, 2006 05:14 PMHere is the actual procedure for declassifying documents:
(B) Applicability. These standards are binding on all executive
branch agencies that create or handle classified information and are
applicable to records covered under Section 3.4 of the Order.
(A) Normally, only one stamp should be placed on the document with
any subsequent reviewing agencies adding their information to the stamp
on the document, if possible. The stamp should not cover any writing on
the document.
(B) Specific fields in the stamp must be completed as follows:
(1) Exemption Code: Agency(ies) ID and 25X plus exemption code(s).
(2) Date/Event: A specific date or event for declassification.
(3) Other Agency Equity: This line is used to track other agency
equities and their review. The declassification authority enters
``NONE'' if no other agency equities are present, the identifiers of
agencies with equity, or ``TBD'' (To be determined) if equities are
unknown. Agency identifiers are crossed off as the reviews are completed
and names may be added if additional equities are found.
(4) Reviewed by: Optional. If used, enter name or other personal
identifier.
(5) Date: Enter date the action was taken.
(ii) Sample Stamp for Document Declassification. (A) When agencies
mark declassified documents, the stamp must, at a minimum, include the
information shown in the following example:
(B) Specific fields in the stamp must be completed as follows:
(1) Agency: Name of the agency.
(2) By: Name or personal identifier of the reviewer. (Optional)
(3) Date: Date the action was taken.
[64 FR 49389, Sept. 13, 1999; 64 FR 62113, Nov. 16, 1999; 65 FR 16320,
Mar. 28, 2000]
[[Page 500]]
Posted by Happy Camper at April 7, 2006 05:26 PMThe White House does not want to jeopardize national security to assuage foolish reporters who would love to see our country destroyed.
Is there something wrong with that?
Posted by shoelimpy at April 7, 2006 07:19 PMCan't you people even look at the picture on your own web site?
All the experts are saying that no illegal action has been taken by the Bush White House, even if he did EVERYTHING the liberals are saying he did. (Which of course he didn't).
So, ummmmm, where's the story again?
Posted by shoelimpy at April 7, 2006 07:25 PMshoelimpy, where is the proof that McCain-Kennedy grants amnesty to anyone? I'm still waiting from yesterday for you to put up or shut up. Seeing that you haven't, ...
Posted by Steve Soto at April 7, 2006 07:28 PMSo, if Bush says something is declassified it is, but, only as long as he says so. Welcome to the 17th century political philosophy known as absolutism.: (
Posted by herbal tee at April 7, 2006 07:38 PMHerbal Tee, they know that isn't true, but as usual they are spinning reality (or making our new reality). These smucks actually believe that Bush just has to say "presto" and it's done. Our Government doesn't work like that, but hey, facts are of no importance in their world. Bush is pulling the same crap he pulled when caught with his pants down on the spying issue. "Yeah, I did it, and I am going to continue doing it" (until someone stops me). Once again, another finger to our system and our way of life.
Posted by Judith at April 7, 2006 08:03 PMMr. McClellan said. "Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the public interest is one thing," he said. "But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction" — a distinction Democrats refuse to see, he said repeatedly.
Yeah, and up is down, and right is wrong. McClellan is so good at double speak, but I guess he has had five plus years to hon his skills.
Posted by Judith at April 7, 2006 08:17 PMThese pansy asses don't even have the balls to stand up when their pResident does something wrong or illegal.
The word WRONG in the sentence above is the one the trolls can't seem to discuss. I'm not concerned with whether or not this latest heinous act is illegal or legal. It was "WRONG"! He lied. He called for the heads of the leakers. He demanded a witch-hunt. He tied up our court system. He wasted our tax dollars and human resources. Outraged, he chastised journalists for threatening our national security and carefully explained to the nation why the leak was a threat. He demanded that we be outraged. He purposely endangered the lives of targeted individuals. He allowed a reporter to be jailed (willingly or un-) for contempt when he was the leak. He's wasted my damn time with yet another lie. This is just a short list from my current-event-deprived, fairly recent memory.
Surely even a derelict prosecutor can find a criminal act somewhere in that list. But that doesn't really concern me. It seems anything can be made legal or illegal at his bidding. I'm concerned that he committed an act that snubs many of our long held mores. He is a conspirator who has committed an inexcusable WRONG. Those that attempt to justify that WRONG expose themselves as fellow conspiritors or mindless drones who are working against the interests of the citizens and residents of this country.
Finally, thanks to the many here that predicted that the leak came from the top. I doubt that few who tread here found this newest revelation a surprise. They certainly can't say they weren't warned
Acually Goose... you need to do your homework.
Most legal experts in the area (Including the FISA judges themselves) do not think that the NSA wiretap program is illegal. NY Times editorial staffs and 2008 presidential hopefuls are not the 'experts' in the area.
Posted by CH Truth at April 7, 2006 02:27 PM
Truth, This is BS Most of the FISA Judges, Legal experts that have looked at it says Wireta[s without a warrant are ILLegal. Stop make shit up and deal with it
"Finally, thanks to the many here that predicted that the leak came from the top. I doubt that few who tread here found this newest revelation a surprise. They certainly can't say they weren't warned"
OffTheFence, that tinfoil hat is fitting better and better, isn't it? I'll tell you something else many of us agree with, that Bush knew about 9/11 too.
Posted by Judith at April 8, 2006 06:18 AMThe-Leaker-in-Chief doesn't know the meaning of wrong. His Momma didn't teach him the difference between right and wrong.
Posted by Judith at April 8, 2006 08:08 AM"The White House does not want to jeopardize national security to assuage foolish reporters who would love to see our country destroyed.
Which, of course, explains why this Administration leaked out classified information to the Press (Judy Miller, Bob Novak, Matt Cooper, etc.) about the identity of a CIA covert operative who's sole purpose is to find WMD proliferation in rogue countries throughout the world.
Logic - that deep, dark, ominous place where the Bush apologists dare not tread.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at April 8, 2006 10:01 AM