Posted on 02/06/2006 6:08:53 AM PST by ken5050
Be comforted that you are a normal person having an entirely understandable, normal reaction.
:^)
Spector:The ground rules are we will not ask for factual underpinnings of the program. That is for another committee, the intelligence committee.
I'd counsel Gonzales to stay well away from any argument that rings of "statutory permission under FISA, in wartime."
AUMF
What does this stand for? thanks.
Spector: Making disclosures to the gang of 8, we want to know more and the adequacy of that.
Right on. Only question that needs to be asked, "Does the FISA court overule the II Amendment of the Constitution"?
If not, this meeting is adjourned.
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND SENATOR SPECTER'S QUESTION ABOUT "RENUNCIATION" OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER [Andy McCarthy]
Last week’s NRO editorial on Senate Judiciary Chairman Specter’s questions to AG Gonzales in preparation for today’s hearing on the NSA’s terrorist surveillance program analyzed Sen. Specter’s suggestion that President Bush was somehow bound by what the senator took to be President Jimmy Carter’s “explicit renunciation of any claim to inherent Executive authority to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance” in signing FISA.
The Justice Department has convincingly rebutted this suggestion in the answers it provided last Friday to Sen. Specter’s questions – specifically, answer number 6, which demonstrates that renunciation is not merely unsound as a legal theory but also counter-factual in the case of President Carter and FISA. (Speaking for the administration, Attorney General, Griffen Bell unambiguously testified that Carter was in no way renouncing his inherent authority by acceding to FISA).
It is interesting to note, though, that the Clinton administration took an even more aggressive position on this question. Speaking for the Reno Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, then-Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger argued that Presidents were not only unaffected and unrestricted by their predecessors’ positions. Dellinger said that Presidents were not even bound by their own positions – or even bound to defend or execute provisions that they themselves had signed into law. Here’s how Dellinger put it in his formal 1994 OLC opinion, provided as guidance to the Clinton White House (italics are mine):
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
My knees have gone weak and my eye is starting to twitch.
Gonzales looks like he's ready for battle.
LOL.
Specter is reading penalties for lying to Congress.
Agreed.
What are the penalties for Congress lying to the people and leaking secrets.
Specter is on our side on this, he's not going to swear Al in. Good move.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1572680/posts
Gonzales Calls NSA Eavesdropping 'Lawful'
Las Vegas Sun ^ | 6 Feb 06 | Kathryn Shrader
Posted on 02/06/2006 8:20:01 AM CST by xzins
He just mentioned the code numbers so I don't know what they say.
Thread yesterday: Specter says FISA may be unconstitutional.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1572333/posts
Thanks for starting the thread....caught the tail end of Washington Journal, one of the guests was Prof Robert Turner of Univ of Virginia (Ibelieve) who says the President is fully in compilance with the Constitution and that other so called Constitutional Experts (The George Washington Univ gang...Turley , Cole and others ) are ignorant of the issues in regard to the war time powers of the President....incidentally he says that LEGALLY the Congress has declared War....he stated that the day he was on the panel after the appearance of Gonzales at George Washington Univ where Cole and his students had the Clever little turning of the ir backs on Gonzales....
Specter: "... very profound questions..."
LOL
[These Senators are so stuck on themselves and their self-importance...]
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.