Skip to comments.Ed Meese Takes Chris Matthews Head On 1/12/2006 (Cleans Matthews' Clock)
Posted on 01/13/2006 9:08:20 AM PST by Howlin
click here to read article
The part I really can't believe is the notion they keep telling me Tucker Carlson is a "conservative". BS!!
ping for later read
Read the law. It refers to aural or equipment interception.
I've read the law AND the court rulings.
I can almost feel the spittle in my face....
The Republicans and Democrats have gotten too much alike for me, and in areas such as fiscal responsibility and federal government power over the states and the people each is worse than the other. I have little hope for reform from within, so I see the need for another party.
So the anti-Bush message doesn't score points with me.
Please differentiate between being against Bush, which I'm not, and criticism of certain actions and speech on the part of him and his supporters.
Then what part of 18 USC Sec. 2510 do you not understand? The definitions there are quite clear, such as the "aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device."
I understand it all.
It is you who is doing the 'parsing.'
Where in the world did sissy Chrissy get that??? Far as I know, all he was indicted on was misleading statements to the Grand Jury. 30 years? In libs dreams!
Great interview with Meese. He put down Matthews spin and lies as soon as it came out of the loudmouth. Made a fool out of Matthews.
it is THE libs dream
Hope they can handle disappointment. I'll bet this is dismissed.. Soon as they have played it for all the damage they can do, it will be dropped. Unfortunately Libby will be tarred with the charge.
Ah, another Clinton tactic, blame the other guy, go on the offensive.
A bow tie does not a conservative make. I see very little evidence of a brain at work. I think he's on because he looks "preppy." One wishes he actually had prepped.
He's about as smart as Coulter's dog, but is a friendly puppy to these liberal jerks.
It was secret so the terrorists would not know what we were doing ..It was not a "cover up".
Why we did it is clear.
Fine, but why is Meese pulling a Clinton in defense of it?
I saw a poll on Brit's show Thursday night, and it showed that 2/3 of the American people see no problem with this issue.
Yes and yes.
Meese was outstanding in this interview, and thanks to you, Howlin, I got it on tape.
Made Chrissy look silly...............not that that's hard to do...... ;)
Facts are stubborn things. The Dems would be wise to try to stick to them rather than lie and deceive about everything that spews forth out of their mouths.
Pray tell doing what?
He hasn't done anything wrong or dishonest with regards to this one specific issue, and if supporting him on that fact sets your hair on fire, that's your problem.
All you've done is try to equate Bush as some Clinton clone. You need a new schtick or go find some other thread to post in.
You haven't been reading. I've equated the speech of Bush and his supporters to Clinton's style, such as what the definition of "is" is.
Course it matters. If I sat here and recorded my next door neighbors phone calls, it's not illegal. What is illegal is if I turned those tapes over for public consumption either through the sale of such tapes, or given to the national or local media for playback, or blabbed around the rest of the neighborhood what I overheard "last night on my phone".
Go ahead, plug a computer into your neighbor's VOIP phone line and start recording everything he says. Don't listen, just record. Then turn yourself in and see whether you get prosecuted under the federal wiretapping laws.
You're assuming the neighbor even HAS a VOIP line to begin with. You'll also be the fool who turned yourself in. There's a difference between government officials wiretapping and private citizens wiretapping. You're just an idiot with a computer.
Put a new column down, label it "He ain't got a clue" and put his screen name under there.
Thanks for the ping. Meese sure did a great job. Chrissy wasn't about to give up though. Same Dem talking points. Can't prove his point on the wiretapping, so he had to jump to Plame, thinking that one is still a winner.
What part of Bush's actions do you distrust? And please, confine your answer to this one subject alone. I don't care about all your other beefs, I've certainly heard them all, and believe all of it to be BS.
My, my, that's certainly an impeachable offense if I ever saw one.
C'mon! Sheesh, you can do better than that.
Same referenced law:
"(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who - (a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; ... shall be punished as provided..."Actual disclosure is in subparagraphs after (a). Interception alone is illegal. I hope for your sake you haven't already done that.
You're assuming the neighbor even HAS a VOIP line to begin with. You'll also be the fool who turned yourself in.
You're trying to get away from the point. I used VOIP for those people who say the technology's changed. I don't care if you sniff it out of the air or attach a splitter to his POTS line, it's still illegal.
There's a difference between government officials wiretapping and private citizens wiretapping.
No there isn't. They're both illegal, except for the part about "Except as otherwise specifically provided," which references provisions that allow legal government interception of communications under certain circumstances.
Appeals panel rejects secret court's limits on terrorist wiretaps
From Terry Frieden
Tuesday, November 19, 2002 Posted: 1:24 AM EST (0624 GMT)
CNN's Kelli Arena says a U.S. appeals court ruling allows broad wiretap authority in the hunt for terrorists (November 18)
Justice appeals court ruling limiting information sharing
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States has broad authority to use wiretaps and other surveillance techniques to hunt for suspected terrorists, a federal appeals court panel ruled Monday.
In a 56-page opinion overturning a May decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the three-judge panel said the expanded wiretap guidelines sought by Attorney General John Ashcroft under the new USA Patriot Act law do not violate the Constitution. (More on the USA Patriot Act)
The ruling by the special panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gives broad surveillance authority to counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism investigators to track individuals considered potential national security threats.
"Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces," the panel declared.
The reversal of May's decision by a federal judge represents a victory for the Justice Department and the FBI, which were harshly criticized by the lower court judge for its handling of wiretap applications, and their interpretation of the authority granted the government by the USA Patriot Act
DUH ON YOU.
I'm talking relevant law, specifically during a time of war.
Right. Republicrat is citing law that governs private citizens.
Loved it, thanks for the post. I don't expect chrissy will have Mr. Meese back on anytime soon. A mega thank you to Mr. Meese.
Between the "malaria" his most recent "sickness" I truly believe that Chris is hitting the bottle hard.
MEGA Meese and mega Howlin'
Now that is pure BS!
MATTHEWS: OK. Why did the agency go to the FBI?
MEESE: I have no idea.
Another lingering question without an answer.
I do not trust the CIA anymore; even with Porter Goss over there.
Wow, Meese did great !!!!!!
Be sure to watch the video in #16.........it's fabulous.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know, you mentioned the fact that the president notified the Congress. He notified the intelligence committees, and when he did so, the ranking Democrat on Senate Intelligence Committee wrote a letterbecause he was told he couldnt tell his staff about it. So Jay Rockefeller wrote down in a letter complaining about it. That didnt do any good.
MEESE: No, he didnt write a letter complaining about it. He wrote a very short note saying he had some questions about this and then he didnt follow up on it. I think it was kind of one of those CYA letters to tell you the truth.
ROFL!! No wonder I was laughing, both at the content he was reading and Kennedy reading the content!
I saw it. I loved the look on Spitoons face..LOL
How's your wrist? Do you need surgery?