Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jed Babbin: Rockefeller IS the source of the leak on the NSA wiretaps..will he take a polygraph?
John Batchelor program..WABC radio

Posted on 02/03/2006 8:47:20 PM PST by ken5050

Turned on the radio, happened to catch the last segment of the John Batchelor show. He was interviewing Jeb Babbin....who many of us know and respect, and read his columns. I was absolutely stunned by what Babbin just said...hadn't seen/heard it anywheres..and thought it merits reposting for your benefit....


TOPICS: US: West Virginia; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 109th; babbin; batchelor; jayrockefeller; jedbabbin; johnbatchelor; leaks; nsa; spying; talkradio; traitor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-240 last
To: cinives

I have those same questions. The only answer was that it wasn't covert...there was no qualification or explanation. It seems like the administration's decision to brief only the chairmen and ranking members speaks to some kind of classified protection but I don't know.


201 posted on 02/04/2006 10:50:37 AM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; All

I find myself just sick over this whole subject...

The fact that Specter is even allowing these hearings at a time that our country is involved in very precarious negotiations all over the world...plus the Hamas elections, you have Rumsfeld and Condi traveling around trying to get the "coalitions" to stand up for what is right...

While at that same time...their whole administration is being put on trial...and our enemies must be laughing their butts off...

I also find it AMAZING that these same Congresscritters that are all up in arms about "secret" wiretapping, are the same ones that don't think twice about slipping in billions of dollars worth of pork into bills in the middle of the night, unbeknownst to we American taxpayers...THOSE secrets they can keep.

If not for the fact that Bush is right on this subject..and KNOWS that he is right on this subject...and KNOWS that the dems are gonna end up screwing themselves on this subject....

I just wish that Bush would use his POTUS power to tell them to go to heck...in the name of national security.


202 posted on 02/04/2006 10:59:01 AM PST by Txsleuth (l drink tea, not kool-aid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

I really, really wish I had gotten to see that hearing..but, babysitting and LONG hearings don't go well together...LOL

I thought I was gonna get a good day of hearing watching in on Monday...but, I found out I will be babysitting on Monday this week...(I LOVE my granddaughters, really I do)....sigh.


203 posted on 02/04/2006 11:01:00 AM PST by Txsleuth (l drink tea, not kool-aid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Good point. I guess it's now a standard of the 'Rat playbook now. They sure do thrive on misdirection.

I was watching spitball this last week and Sissie was talking to a White House press secretary-type gal (I forget her name, but very well spoken and very hot looking blonde). He brought up Bush's line in the the State of the Union about defeatism then referred to a poll that supposedly shows that the vast majority of Americans think it was wrong to send troops to Iraq. He then asked if that made all these Americans defeatists! Talk about a leap in logic.

204 posted on 02/04/2006 11:07:45 AM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (How long do we have to pretend that Democrats are patriots?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
I caught a few minutes..He was discussing some memomrandum that a Cinto DoJ atty wrote in 1994 ( and the guy has now written something attacking Bush about the NSA wiretaps)back then he said that the president.( Clinton) has the absolute authority to IGNORE any act of Congress that impedes his constitutional authority...anyone have any info?

"The Dellinger Memorandum"

I haven't found the full text of it. Dawn E. Johnsen's law review article, "Presidential Non-enforcement of Constitutionally Objectionable Statutes" discusses the Dillinger memorandum at some length.

Under Dellinger's formulation, whether the President should [*pg 24] enforce a particular statute that he considers unconstitutional depends largely on a prediction of how the Supreme Court would rule on the constitutionality of the provision in question. That is, the President typically has the authority to decline to enforce a statute if he determines both that a law is unconstitutional and that it is probable that the Court would agree. By contrast, if the President believes the Court would uphold the law, he generally should comply with the law. When the President's own powers are threatened, he has greater authority: The President may decline to enforce a statute unless he is convinced that the Court would disagree with his assessment. Dellinger also identified several other factors the President should consider in deciding whether to exercise non-enforcement authority, such as the likely effect of non-enforcement on the justiciability of the law and on the constitutional rights of affected individuals. ...

The Dellinger Memorandum recognizes that an important factor in the President's decision whether to disregard a constitutionally objectionable statute is how clear the constitutional defect is. The Dellinger Memorandum also addresses the related central issue of the appropriateness of presidential deference to the constitutional views of the other branches. The Dellinger formulation requires the President to base his enforcement decisions not only on his own views but also on great deference to Congress and a prediction of how the Supreme Court likely would rule. If the Court likely would sustain the provision, the President "as a general matter" should enforce the provision. "If, however, the President, exercising his independent judgment, determines both that a provision would violate the Constitution and that it is probable that the Court would agree with him, the [*pg 45] President has the authority to decline to execute the statute." Dellinger endorses a standard more permissive of non-enforcement for provisions that encroach on presidential powers. ...

... I would add to the Dellinger formulation that the President's own constitutional views should play a greater role when the presidency, as an institution, possesses special expertise such that the President's views on at least some aspect of the constitutional issue are likely to be superior to those of the Court and to any considered view Congress seems to have been expressing. [*pg 46] The President's views may be deserving of added weight, for example, on issues regarding which the courts typically defer to the political branches or treat as nonjusticiable and entrust to the executive branch, either alone or together with Congress.

The Dellinger Memorandum describes the President's non-enforcement authority as greatly enhanced when the law encroaches on the constitutional powers of the presidency: "Where the President believes that an enactment unconstitutionally limits his powers, he has the authority to defend his office and decline to abide by it, unless he is convinced that the Court would disagree with his assessment." The Dellinger position is consistent with past executive branch policy and practice.

The executive branch typically has justified enhanced non-enforcement authority when the President's powers are threatened as necessary to self-defense, and, in turn, preservation of the constitutional balance of powers. The 1980 Civiletti Memorandum describes this rationale well: "[T]he Executive can rarely defy an Act of Congress without upsetting the equilibrium established within our constitutional system; but if that equilibrium has already been placed [*pg 51] in jeopardy by the Act of Congress itself, the case is much more likely to fall within that narrow class."

63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 7 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Dawn E. Johnsen, Presidential Non-Enforcement of Constitutionally Objectionable Statutes


See also:
63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 107 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Peter L. Strauss, The President and Choices Not to Enforce

63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 125 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Lori Fisler Damrosch, The Clinton Administration and War Powers

63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 479 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Alan J. Meese, Bakke Betrayed

Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes, 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 199 (1994)
(memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger)

The Attorney General's Duty to Defend and Enforce Constitutionally Objectionable Legislation, 4A Op. Off. Legal Counsel 55 (1980)
(memorandum from Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti)


Recommended reading:

[Recommendation] 7. Congress should update and clarify the almost 200 standby statutory authorities, triggered variously and often ambiguously by "declared war," "war" alone, "time of war,"or "national emergency,"and it should codify selected laws of war.

An authorization for the use of force affects not just the foreign target.By virtue of almost 200 statutes providing standby domestic legal authority, each authorization triggers "domino"domestic legal effects. Unfortunately, not all of these are known to or intended by Congress because the domestic standby statutes have accumulated haphazardly over many years and have not been updated or clarified to fit the contemporary congressional preference for using use-of-force authorizations rather than declarations of war. Congress has not codified important aspects of the law of war, especially regarding the scope and procedures for military detention and military trial of enemy combatants - law which has recently been invoked by the President to detain even U.S. citizens in conjunction with the 2001 use-of-force authorization.

Deciding to Use Force Abroad: War Powers in a System of Checks and Balances
An Initiative of The Constitution Project | 2005


205 posted on 02/04/2006 11:08:12 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

Rich Rocky needs to be down in his West VA working
on the mine problems instead of undercutting Bush on
the war

****

HA! First he would have to understand what a miner does. LOL


206 posted on 02/04/2006 11:28:51 AM PST by jdhljc169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
The only answer was that it wasn't covert...there was no qualification or explanation

At the end .. when Negroponte talked about how everyone on the panel took an oath to uphold the law .. he also mention that the Attorney General would address this further next week (Monday)

Also .. another thing that caught my attention was Rockefeller saying that only 4 members of the 535 members of Congress knows the most extensive effort of our intel in the NSA

He seemed to be trying to make a case that he believes under the law more members of Congress should know what is going on

207 posted on 02/04/2006 11:58:03 AM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
I caught a few minutes..He was discussing some memomrandum that a Cinto DoJ atty wrote in 1994 (and the guy has now written something attacking Bush about the NSA wiretaps) back then he said that the president. (Clinton) has the absolute authority to IGNORE any act of Congress that impedes his constitutional authority...anyone have any info?

Ahh, here 'tis ...

Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes, 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 199 (1994)
(memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger)
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

DoJ Opinions -> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/opinionspage.htm


The last link below is "new" to this collection. It is -NOT- the Dellinger memo recently referred to in order to paint Dellinger as taking both sides of the presidential power issue.

63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 7 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Dawn E. Johnsen, Presidential Non-Enforcement of Constitutionally Objectionable Statutes

63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 107 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Peter L. Strauss, The President and Choices Not to Enforce

63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 125 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Lori Fisler Damrosch, The Clinton Administration and War Powers

63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 479 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Alan J. Meese, Bakke Betrayed

63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 513 (Winter/Spring 2000)
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS

208 posted on 02/04/2006 12:01:50 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64; Graymatter

>>>>This administration couldn't even punish Sandy Burger, they're not going to take on a senator.<<<<<<<<<<<
........Agreed. W always wants to be nice......

The instance cited would have been a minor political win.

The current instance will confirm historical precedent for conduct during time of war. It is a different matter.

W says "At a time of my choosing"


209 posted on 02/04/2006 12:10:33 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
The NSA intercept program would without a doubt be TS-SCI, which means Sen. Rockefeller would not be able to give this information to any staffer. The fact that Bush chose the "Gang of 8" notification option instead of briefing the both full intel committees and that Rockefeller himself went out of his way to state that his objection letter was hand-typed seems to support this presumption.
210 posted on 02/04/2006 1:57:41 PM PST by Cylinder2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
There is more to it than these three, although that is all that the DoD Security Manual refers to. Sometimes is you are dealing in TS the mere information is not to even be acknowledged. For Ts there are also SCI criteria. DOE issues a "Q" clearance for involvement with certain nuke technologies and material. NSA has coded SAP programs and two-man requirements for certain key material handling. There are others. I am not sure what clearance level Congresscritters get since they are not contractors, but NSA has stated publicly that no one in congress is cleared to hear anything that "Treasonous Whilstle blower, Leaker Tice" knows about the SAP programs he had access to. Tice is not going to be able to testify about much to Congress - he is going to have to work through DoD and DOJ.
211 posted on 02/04/2006 2:36:40 PM PST by p23185 (Why isn't attempting to take down a sitting Pres & his Admin during wartime considered Sedition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
<9>"Look for him to step down from that role in the committee."

Tend to agree. I doubt if they will ask him to take a polygraph. But if they require his staff to take one, chances are they will spill their guts if they know the truth of the matter -- especially if they were involved. Plea bargain for testimony, betcha.

212 posted on 02/04/2006 7:06:15 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

thanks, and good morning..see you Monday...


213 posted on 02/05/2006 4:00:02 AM PST by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

THat's the one..the same guy apparently just wrote some article attacking Bush..in effect saying the exact opposite..


214 posted on 02/05/2006 4:06:07 AM PST by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

You are hereby ordered to get some sleep


215 posted on 02/05/2006 4:07:21 AM PST by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

I take it for granted that Babbin knows what he is talking about and would not made such a statement if these discussions on "background" with members of the intelligence community had not actually taken place. However, what I would like to know is why these people in the intelligence community are leaking the name of Rockefeller to Babbin at this time or anyone else for that matter. They obviously did not swear him to secrecy until after the hearings started or he would have not said anything about it on this radio show. What was their purpose in giving Babbin this information?


216 posted on 02/05/2006 8:08:11 AM PST by jessjake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

That's the way you go after him. Start low and work your way up.


217 posted on 02/05/2006 9:41:43 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Thud

ping


218 posted on 02/05/2006 10:45:20 AM PST by Dark Wing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

'Zactly!


219 posted on 02/05/2006 12:59:25 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: jessjake

I'd srumise it's an attempt to shape the hearings tomorrow..in effect, a warnign shot across Rockefeller's bow...While I'm sure that the intelligence types, along with everyone here on FR, would love to get Rockefeller..see him frogmarched out of the committee..they are probably,a nd right so, MORE concerned for now with not blowing any more operational details..I'd watch and listen very carefully to the tone of his opening statement.


220 posted on 02/05/2006 2:15:22 PM PST by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Remember that Rockefeller is the one that went to Syria, Iraq and Iran and told them that we were going to invade Iraq, giving Saddam the opportunity to hide/move the WMDs before the war started.

I have no trouble believing he is the leaker again.


221 posted on 02/06/2006 10:00:36 AM PST by mak5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DeaconNoGood

A Senator or congressman cannot be impeached. They can be censured by their house and even stripped of their seat, as was the case with Adam Clayton Powell in the '60's, but not impeached.


222 posted on 02/06/2006 10:03:41 AM PST by mak5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

Are the Senator's staff cleared to receive top secret information?


223 posted on 02/06/2006 10:22:15 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mak5
Ah yes - You're correct. Censured, not impeached.

Any Senator that leaks sensitive information should be censured.

Note - I've assumed that the NSA was filtering every email, telephone and cell phone call for many years, even before 9/11/01

224 posted on 02/06/2006 11:13:23 AM PST by DeaconNoGood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Tuesday : (DEMOCRAT STAFF ATTACK MEMO IS LEAKED TO FOX NEWS' SEAN HANNITY -See ROCKEFELLER, SENATEINTELMEMO) SNOW: All right. Now, last Tuesday, somebody leaked to Fox News's Sean Hannity a Democratic staff memo that laid out a strategy for making political hay out of Intelligence Committee investigations of the White House.
Among the key points in the memo: "Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials." And, "Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. The best time to do so will probably be next year."---------------- "Transcript: Pat Roberts on 'FOX News Sunday', "a transcribed excerpt from FOX News Sunday, foxnews.com, Sunday, November 09, 2003, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102590,00.html and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1018444/posts
225 posted on 02/06/2006 1:45:50 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Revererdrv
AUGUST 2001 : (BUSH RECEIVES INTEL BRIEFING; EVENTUALLY [in 2002] INFO FROM THIS BRIEFING WOULD BE LEAKED BY SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS IN THEIR EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT) The initial leaks about the intelligence briefings President Bush received last August [2001] came from Democratic staffers on the Senate Intelligence Committee, not the FBI or the CIA as some on Capitol Hill would have us believe.- ''We Have to Get Bush,'' American Prowler, 5/20/02 , The Prowler

APRIL? 2002 : (DASCHLE, DEMOCRAT SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS EFFORT TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT BECOMES DESPERATE) According to a senior Democratic Senate aide [in a report by the American Prowler] , the word has been out for more than six weeks that "We have to get Bush," says the source. "Daschle is absolutely desperate. Gephardt, I guess is absolutely desperate. Bush's polling numbers weren't moving down, he was bulletproof. Everyone was under orders to keep their eyes and ears open for anything we could use."- ''We Have to Get Bush,'' American Prowler, 5/20/02 , The Prowler

226 posted on 02/06/2006 1:49:16 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
MAY 20?, 2002 Thursday AM : (DASCHLE PLOT AGAINST BUSH ) During his press briefing with Capitol Hill reporters on Thursday morning, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle could barely contain the smile on his face as he discussed what he believed the Bush Administration knew about possible terrorist attacks prior to September 11. "I wouldn't know," Daschle said with a smile, adding quickly that he was never briefed on those issues by the White House, nor did he ever ask.
Daschle should be smiling, and White House staffers know why. The initial leaks about the intelligence briefings President Bush received last August came from Democratic staffers on the Senate Intelligence Committee, not the FBI or the CIA as some on Capitol Hill would have us believe.
According to one knowledgeable Senate source, the Senate and House intelligence committees received some of the briefing material prepared by the CIA for the president's daily review about three weeks ago. This, as part of their ongoing review of the CIA's analysis of potential terrorism threats leading up to September 11. "It wouldn't be the kind [of intelligence information] the committee staffers would normally see in the course of their work," says the source. "Those briefings are limited to the White House, the President, the Vice President, Condi Rice, senators and representatives don't get those briefings. I don't know if the CIA intended for that material to end up here or not. It might have been an oversight. No matter now, the cat is out of the bag."
According to a senior Democratic Senate aide, the word has been out for more than six weeks that "We have to get Bush," says the source. "Daschle is absolutely desperate. Gephardt, I guess is absolutely desperate. Bush's polling numbers weren't moving down, he was bulletproof. Everyone was under orders to keep their eyes and ears open for anything we could use."
It's not clear whether Daschle was aware of the potentially explosive information prior to its being put in the hands of Washington reporters. "I'd be surprised if he did," says a senior Democratic leadership aide. "It isn't the kind of thing he's want to really see or know about beforehand. But we know someone friendly to our side did the leaking. We knew if we could get something out there, the media wouldn't try to put the leak into political perspective for the public, just the potential for a 'Briefing-gate.' And, as usual, the press did our job for us." -------- ''We Have to Get Bush,'' American Prowler, 5/20/02 , The Prowler
227 posted on 02/06/2006 1:53:36 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Also .. another thing that caught my attention was Rockefeller saying that only 4 members of the 535 members of Congress knows the most extensive effort of our intel in the NSA
He seemed to be trying to make a case that he believes under the law more members of Congress should know what is going on

That's probably just what he's thinking. It's awful easy to figure out who the leaker is if there's only 4 of 'em in the know.

228 posted on 02/06/2006 2:02:47 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: piasa; Mo1; kcvl
According to a senior Democratic Senate aide, the word has been out for more than six weeks that "We have to get Bush," says the source.

Now, I have heard that before. And I'm trying to think WHERE I heard that or read that -- maybe a memo?

229 posted on 02/06/2006 2:28:27 PM PST by Howlin (Why don't you just report the news, instead of what might be the news? - Donald Rumsfeld 1/25/2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
the senate intel memo was about taking the President down using classified information and to get a special counsil
230 posted on 02/06/2006 2:33:34 PM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: piasa

Thank you very much, reassuring me parts of my mind still click at times.


231 posted on 02/06/2006 2:42:16 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

So that is one and the same?


232 posted on 02/06/2006 2:47:55 PM PST by Howlin (Why don't you just report the news, instead of what might be the news? - Donald Rumsfeld 1/25/2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

It be honest .. there have been so many leaks and attacks on the President ... I'm losing track of them all and the timing

I'll have to check my bookmarks later when I have time


233 posted on 02/06/2006 2:49:45 PM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; Howlin; All

http://intelmemo.com


234 posted on 02/06/2006 2:53:38 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: piasa

What memo is Feingold talking about??

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1572966/posts?page=36#36


235 posted on 02/06/2006 6:25:21 PM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Howlin


Thursday, November 06, 2003


Following is the text of a memo written by a Democrat on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq. The memo was obtained by Fox News.



snip




(excerpted memo) - Fox News


Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or

B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.


snip



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102258,00.html


236 posted on 02/07/2006 4:41:44 PM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Peach

FYI..this was the thread...I suspect the Justice deparment is paying this one VERY close to the vest..


237 posted on 02/24/2006 10:57:17 AM PST by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to propagate her gene pool. Any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
That's the one, Ken. For once, I'd just like to see one of these guys either booted out of the Senate or, preferably, arrested.
238 posted on 02/24/2006 11:12:06 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Peach

It really depends if they have iron-clad evidence..


239 posted on 02/24/2006 11:15:11 AM PST by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to propagate her gene pool. Any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

bring it on


240 posted on 02/27/2006 4:05:36 PM PST by prognostigaator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-240 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson