Giuliani Top Choice Among Both Moderate and Conservative Republicans (New Gallup Poll)

Gallup ^ | 3/20/07

[Durus]

I would expect the"awesome supporters" to try to sway some of those that think McCain is a loon who shreds the constitution to wield power.

[Calpernia]

You post sounds scripted.

Try explaining this.

---------------------------------------------------

May 3, 1992

Memorandum for: Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action

From: John F. McCreary

Subject: Possible Violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, by the Select Committee and Possible Ethical Misconduct by Staff Attorneys.

1. Continuing analysis of relevant laws and further review of the events between 8 April and 16 April 1992 connected with the destruction of the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text strongly indicate that the order to destroy all copies of that briefing text on 9 April and the actual destruction of copies of the briefing texts plus the purging of computer files might constitute violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, which imposes criminal penalties for unlawful document destruction. Even absent a finding of criminal misconduct, statements, actions, and failures to act by the senior Staff attorneys following the 9 April briefing might constitute serious breaches of ethical standards of conduct for attorneys, in addition to violations of Senate and Select Committee rules. The potential consequences of these possible misdeeds are such that they should be brought to the attention of all members of the Select Committee, plus all Designees and Staff members who were present at the 9 April briefing.

2. The relevant section of Title 18, U.S.C., states in pertinent part: Section 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795)

3. The facts as the undersigned and others present at the briefing recall them are presented in the attached Memorandum for the Record. A summary of those facts - and others that have been established since that Memorandum was written - follows.

a. On 8 April 1992, the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text was presented to Senior Staff members and Designees for whom copies were available prior to beginning the briefing. Objections to the text by the Designees prompted the Staff Director to order all persons present to leave their copies of the briefing text in Room SRB078. Subsequent events indicated that two copies had been removed without authorization.

b. On 9 April 1992, at the beginning of the meeting of the Select Committee and prior to the scheduled investigators' briefing, Senator McCain produced a copy of the intelligence briefing text, with whose contents he strongly disagreed. He charged that the briefing text had already been leaked to a POW/MIA activist, but was reassured by the Chairman that such was not the case. He replied that he was certain it would be leaked. Whereupon, the Chairman assured Senator McCain that there would be no leaks because all copies would be gathered and destroyed, and he gave orders to that effect. No senior staff member or attorney present cautioned against a possible violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, or of Senate or Select Committee Rules.

c. Following the briefing on 9 April, the Staff Director, Ms. Frances Zwenig, restated to the intelligence investigators the order to destroy the intelligence briefing text and took measures to ensure execution of the destruction order. (See paragraph 3 of the attachment.) During one telephone conversation with the undersigned, she stated that she was "acting under orders."

d. The undersigned also was instructed to delete all computer files, which Mr. Barry Valentine witnessed on 9 April.

e. In a meeting on 15 April 1992, the Staff's Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha, was advised by intelligence investigators of their concerns about the possibility that they had committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing text. Mr. Codinha minimized the significance of the documents and of their destruction. He admonished the investigators for "making a mountain out of a molehill."

f. When investigators repeated their concern that the order to destroy the documents might lead to criminal charges, Mr. Codinha replied "Who's the injured party." He was told, "The 2,494 families of the unaccounted for US Servicemen, among others." Mr. Codinha then said, "Who's gonna tell them. It's classified." At that point the meeting erupted. The undersigned stated that the measure of merit was the law and what's right, not avoidance of getting caught. To which Mr. Codinha made no reply. At no time during the meeting did Mr. Codinha give any indication that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.

g. Investigators, thereupon, repeatedly requested actions by the Committee to clear them of any wrongdoing, such as provision of legal counsel. Mr. Codinha admitted that he was not familiar with the law and promised to look into it. He invited a memorandum from the investigators stating what they wanted. Given Mr. Codinha's statements and reactions to the possibility of criminal liability, the investigators concluded they must request appointment of an independent counsel. A memorandum making such a request and signed by all six intelligence investigators was delivered to Mr. Codinha on 16 April.

h. At 2130 on 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, convened a meeting with the intelligence investigators, who told him personally of their concern that they might have committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing texts at the order of the Staff Director. Senator Kerry stated that he gave the order to destroy the documents, not the Staff Director, and that none of the Senators present at the meeting had objected. He also stated that the issue of document destruction was "moot" because the original briefing text had been deposited with the Office of Senate Security "all along." Both the Staff Director and the Chief Counsel supported this assertion by the Chairman.

i. Senator Kerry's remarks prompted follow-up investigations (See paragraphs 4 through 9 of the attachment) and inquiries that established that a copy of the text was not deposited in the Office of Senate Security until the afternoon of 16 April. The Staff Director has admitted that on the afternoon of 16 April, after receiving a copy of a memorandum from Senator Bob Smith to Senator Kerry in which Senator Smith outlined his concerns about the destruction of documents, she obtained a copy of the intelligence briefing text from the office of Senator McCain and took it to the Office of Senate Security. Office of Senate Security personnel confirmed that the Staff Director gave them an envelope, marked "Eyes Only," to be placed in her personal file. The Staff Director has admitted that the envelope contained the copy of the intelligence briefing text that she obtained from the office of Senator McCain.

3. The facts of the destruction of the intelligence briefing text would seem to fall inside the prescriptions of the Statute, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, so as to justify their referral for investigation to a competent law enforcement authority. The applicability of that Statute was debated in United States v. Poindexter, D.D.C. 1989, 725 F. Supp. 13, in connection with the Iran Contra investigation. The District Court ruled, inter alia, that the National Security Council is a public office within the meaning of the Statute and, thus, that its records and documents fell within the protection of the Statute. In light of that ruling, the Statute would seem to apply to this Senate Select Committee and its Staff. The continued existence of a "bootleg" copy of the intelligence briefing text - i.e., a copy that is not one of those made by the investigators for the purpose of briefing the Select Committee - would seem to be irrelevant to the issues of intent to destroy and willfulness; as well as to the issue of responsibility for the order to destroy all copies of the briefing text, for the attempt to carry out that order, and for the destruction that actually was accomplished in execution of that order.

4. As for the issue of misconduct by Staff attorneys, all member of the Bar swear to uphold the law. That oath may be violated by acts of omission and commission. Even without a violation of the Federal criminal statute, the actions and failures to act by senior Staff attorneys in the sequence of events connected with the destruction of the briefing text might constitute violations

of ethical standards for members of the Bar and of both Senate and Select Committee rules. The statements, actions and failures to act during and after the meeting on 15 April, when the investigators gave notice of their concern about possible criminal liability for document destruction, would seem to reflect disregard for the law and for the rules of the United States Senate.

John F. McCreary

May 3, 1992

[HawaiianGecko]

I prefer a man more in the mold of John Wayne with actual military experience and the strength of character and leadership like Hunter.

Not to be nit-picky, but John Wayne, one of my favorite actors and Americans, was never in the military. 

I understand what you are trying to say, but you picked the wrong man for comparison. Fred Thompson is much more Waynelike than Duncan Hunter. I can assure you that if I didn't know any of these men at all and walked into a room full of people that included these gentlemen, John Wayne & Fred Thompson would garner my attention, Duncan wouldn't.

The slovenly look that someone mentioned earlier fits Hunter. I mentioned to my son just a few days ago that the guy always looks like he just stepped off of a long flight.

People should consider that it's not a matter of voting for someone with talking points to their liking.  The trick is getting your talking points into the Republican National Platform, then putting forth a Republican that is electable. 

[bushfamfan]

If only Duncan Hunter had a part on Law and Order, our problems would be solved! LMAO.

[KATIE-O]

LOL! So every poll is meaningless until King Fred says he is running? Boy that really cuts it.




Fred Thompson will not make any difference in Rudy's poll ratings. As attractive as Fred is to ultra conservatives, he has no experience in running a state, much less a country. The train has left the station.

[Calpernia]

I might not support him if he did.

[JHBowden]

That's interesting, because I shop mainly at Kohl's and JCPenney. I used to go to Field's often on, but once they change their name to Macy's I haven't been there since.

The thing with Hunter-- you can't win by being the fed-up Howard Dean putz, with rolled up sleeves that is going to beat up the opposition. Sure, activists love the raw emotion, but it justly scares the rest of the electorate.

Seriously, do you really think the guy below has what it takes to beat Hillary? Be honest. And even if skeptics are correct that Rudy's comedy antics are offensive to many people, why not Fred Thompson?

[NathanR]

Yes he is.

He made it up to a whole 2%, when Newt was removed from consideration among conservatives. Otherwise he is a no-show.

[massadvj]

Gingrich and Hunter have ZERO chance of winning a general election in the current environment. Thompson might have a chance, and I am sure he is assessing it right now. With so many primaries early, this thing will be decided before March of 2008. That means Thompson will need $20-40 million and a compelling message, because the best he can do is match Giuliani dollar for dollar.

At the end of the day, he'll find that the $20 million isn't there, just as Newt has found. The country clubbers who finance these things want a winner more than anything else, and they like what they see in Giuliani, who outpolls Hillary as of right now, without spending money. Mark my words. Thompson will flirt with it, but will not get in. Neither will Newt.

As for Freepers, the fact that 20 percent of them will support a candidate who is basically a liberal, shows that at least a fifth have the common sense to recognize political reality. The main purpose of a primary is to pick the winning candidate. If you don't do that, you've failed your party and your political conscience both. With Giuliani, you can fail your political conscience but not the party. Bad set of choices, but the only ones in this day and age.

[napscoordinator]

Scripted? Obviously when jealousy is involved with people who don't like you, stories are going to be all over the place. I don't believe one word of it.

[Calpernia]

Hillary won't be in the General election.

Duncan Hunter the right stuff to be President and I'm behind him for the long run.

[bushfamfan]

"Not to be nit-picky, but John Wayne, one of my favorite actors and Americans, was never in the military.

I understand what you are trying to say, but you picked the wrong man for comparison. Fred Thompson is much more Waynelike than Duncan Hunter. I can assure you that if I didn't know any of these men at all and walked into a room full of people that included these gentlemen, John Wayne & Fred Thompson would garner my attention, Duncan wouldn't.

The slovenly look that someone mentioned earlier fits Hunter. I mentioned to my son just a few days ago that the guy always looks like he just stepped off of a long flight.

People should consider that it's not a matter of voting for someone with talking points to their liking. The trick is getting your talking points into the Republican National Platform, then putting forth a Republican that is electable."

My point is that there was criticism of the way Duncan Hunter comes across. I answered that he comes across in a John Wayne way manly way, but unlike John Wayne-being in reality-he actually has military experience.

I have to laugh when you say Fred Thompson is more comparable to John Wayne. Hell no! Duncan Hunter is a bear of a man who clearly comes across as the Army Airborne Ranger he is! And when it is compared an 'actor' to someone who has actually served and been an influential member of Congress on defense issues as Chairman and now ranking member, with a son who has done duty in Iraq, THE ACTOR WILL NOT MATTER. People are FAR more impressed with that. Hunter is presidential with the ability to communicate and cut through Demonrat propaganda. Not many Republicans venture to take on the PC cr*p like Hunter does. He has continued to be at the forefront. The GOP needs a leader like Hunter. NO MORE new tone.

Point is, Hunter retains the conservative principles that is(or was) the bedrock of the GOP and is the best possible candidate. To hell with the argument of electability because there is no sure thing and it matters how well the candidate campaigns. Hunter is the best possible choice. And he will make the best President. America needs Duncan Hunter.

[Calpernia]

>>>>stories are going to be all over the place. I don't believe one word of it.

LOOK for yourself.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/mccreary.html

[KATIE-O]

Giuliani Top Choice Among Both Moderate, Conservative Republicans


Not with this conservative Republican.




Well, he's number one with THIS conservative Republican because he can win the election and he has more experience than any candidate running in governing a city of millions and bringing it back from the depths of hell to make it a clean, safe place to live and work. The anti-Rudyites keep trying to distort his record, but most people can see through their bias. Go Rudy.

[Merry]

Ok This is your chance. Convince me why Fred Thompson would be a good President. I saw him on 2 Law and Order reruns and he makes a great actor. What leadership has he shown? How would he deal with North Korea and Iran? What in his past leads you to believe that he would act in a certain way? What did he do before he was in politics? All I see on the threads is Go Fred without an explanation to us who are uninformed about Fred Thompson.

[bushfamfan]

"The slovenly look that someone mentioned earlier fits Hunter. I mentioned to my son just a few days ago that the guy always looks like he just stepped off of a long flight."

Oh yes, how could I forget this 'slovenly' argument??!! Like I said about Fred. He is not good looking. He is not Mr. Smiley Face. His hair is a mess, what he has of it. Hunter beats him there, too. I'm a 30 yr. old female and I think Hunter is nice looking and commands respect and the type women will look to as keeping our country safe. That's where I compare Hunter to John Wayne, appearance wise. He's that type.

[napscoordinator]

This report talks about a leak, but what does that have to do with Senator McCain's time as a POW?

[PhilDragoo]

Thanks for the data. A billion-dollar race involving all the politcal spectrum is different from an internet coffee klatch.

[InfraRed]

Giuliani cannot win the WH. Period. I saw the 2006 election results coming months before the election arrived, and I see a Giuliani trainwreck in the making now. Giuliani is divisive.
Giuliani is more divisive than any other candidate that I can remember since Perot.
Giuliani is not just a bad candidate, he is the absolute worst candidate possible.

[KATIE-O]

This proves that Gallup is out of touch. Or does it prove that Free Republic is out of touch?





What is proves is Rudy has earned the respect and admiration of many people for what he did for NYC, especially in the aftermath of the country's worst disaster. He's rock solid and has what it takes to put a Republican in the White House, instead of turning it over to Slick Willy and THE BEAST again!