Posted on 06/30/2006 12:50:30 PM PDT by Reagan Man
It may not have been criminal, but it was totally reprehensible.
Your business is causing trouble. My business is speaking the truth. If some of you Bush cheerleaders choose to expose yourselves as obnoxious and arrogant jokers, so be it. This thread is a perfect case in point.
Oh get a big damn grip, and let go of your obvious animosity toward the President! This administration is LESS wasp than any administration in my memory, and that encompasses at least 6 Presidencies, including that of the first Catholic president.
Sure, anyone who doesn't agree with your agenda of division is a troublemaker and you're not really a disruptor whose whole intent is to cause friction at FR while you embarrass the name of Reagan. Sure, pravda, you speak pravda, alright!
Yeah, those conservative Supreme Court Justices just appeared out of nowhere. I'm SURE a Democrat administration would have appointed them./sarc
I'll never understand the folks who believe that something should be done NOW, even before information is gathered and an investigation is done, and if it isn't done to their satisfaction, they are giving up on the President right now.
You obtain evidence. You put the editor of the NYT under oath and ask him who was their source. If he involks the 1st amendment, you immunize him. Now ask. If he still refuses, put the son-of-a-bitch in jail until he is no longer in comtempt of court. That means he gives up the leaker. Now you have evidence. These New YOrk Times bastards need to be shown the heat, and they will see the light. No freeper would be treated any different. We just don't have a large newspaper to intimidate the adminsitration with. Buchanan is spot on on this matter.
The teenie weenies of the press must always try to diminunize anybody who does not match the journalism school idea of liberalism and peculiarity and perversity.
thanks Doug that is my thinking, who knows what is going on behind the scenes, this should be very interesting.
I was right on your girlfriend Miers, and I agree with Pat on the NYTs. Also Ann who has been trying to take them down for years.
What am I not right about now? I went through you posts of today (yesterday) to find out and didn't finish. Sweetypie, you've had a busy day.(:-}
PS, we agree on Nixon.
Right on the button, worth repeating for the denser among us.
You can't argue with a woman, especially on FR. Bless em all. Where is Abert+ when you need him?
The N.Y. Slimes has been contemptible and seditious for almost a century. But Pat is still just foaming at the mouth.
I had a busy evening refuting a lunatic, who knows NO factual history at all and keeps posting tripe.
We agree about something? Oh well, at least you know the factual history concerning Watergate and Nixon. That's a whole lot more than the weirdo I'm fighting does. Congrats! :-)
The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service are responsible for detecting and preventing money laundering schemes. Both the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (codified in 31 USC 5311-5332 and 31 CFR 103) and the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56) require banks, money service businesses, and retail stores to report on financial transactions that have the potential for laundering money.
This includes reporting any transactions over 10K or which are 'unusual'.
In addition, there is FinCEN as well, not just a figment of the so-called 'black helicopter' set.
Telecommunications have been monitored through ECHELON and CARNIVORE since the Clinton Administration.
No news to those who have been paying attention. However, an old Connan Doyle line comes to mind, where the clue was the 'dog who did not bark'.
If the Times panics the enemy into even a brief shift in transaction mode and behaviour, this could provide valuable intel.
I have the feeling that not all leaks are completely unintentional. Otherwise, I'd expect the feces would have hit the rotary air shifter by now.
My bet is that at least some transactions have gone off the radar as a result of the Times' statements, and that alone is enough to track a lot of dots. Previously recorded connections follow. ymmv.
"The U.S. Justice Department couldn't possibly prosecute the New York Times for "leaking" information in 2005 about a "top secret NSA electronic surveillance program" that was actually described quite extensively in the U.S. Justice Department's court documents related to the Iyman Faris case in 2003."
Well we only have your word for that. We don't know what your legal credentials are and you refuse to provide links to sources.
What I do know is that lots of people in Congress claimed that they knew nothing about the program and publication in the NY Times led to investigations and legal suits. So your claim that everyone knew about it and there was no "news" seems odd.
"Would you consider Laurence Tribe to be an authority on Federal laws that cover the illegal dissemination of classified U.S. intelligence information?"
Why don't you cite Naom Chomsky while you're at it? Michael Ratner? Rachel Meeropol?
"The left has learned that Bush is all bark and no bite."
I share your frustration. The only thing is to keep up the pressure. We did get him to drop Harriet Myers. And we strengthened the spine of the House members on immigration.
Thanks.
No, you don't just have my word for that. If you click on the link I provided you can read all about it.
The fact that I have no legal credentials is apparently a point in my favor -- since it seems most lawyers these days are thoroughly incapable of thinking rationally.
Bush is weak and will never stand up to the NY Times. The conservative Prime-Minister of Canada stood up to them, but Bush won't even yank the White House press credentials. I am so tired of Bush and his weaklings and the Bushbots here that won't stand up to Bush and will kill the messenger instead.
Not really. Nobody does this, or has ever done it, and there is a simple reason why: the chances of OTHER secret material coming out in the trial, immunization or not, is too great a risk for the return. Did you, or Pat, ever once just maybe think the administration knows a few things you don't?
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.