Sen. Jay Rockefeller a Target?

Macsmind is reporting that Sen. Rockefeller may be the target of investigators examining the leak of classified information on the NSA surveillance program:

"I'm trying to confirm this information, but several sources are telling me today that some investigators working on the NSA leak probe believe that Senator Jay Rockefeller may have been a little more than "concerned" about NSA. In fact, he may just be the leaker of the program to the NY Times, and is now being considered a "significant person of interest" in the probe.

What I'm told that investigatiors have locked into is this fact that other pundits have identified, that Senator Rockefeller had stated that he went to to great lengths to lock away his memo of concern (in a safe) so that not even other close members of the Senate knew about it. Yet the NY Times, James Risen in fact revealed the letter's existance in his initial NSA "book excerpt".

The question being asked is if not even Senator Rockefeller's closest confidants, staffers, etc, knew of the letter's existance, how therefore did James Risen of the NY Times know about it?

If this incoming information is correct, it would not be the first time Senator Rockefeller – Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee had been investigated for leaking classified information. In early 2005, the CIA asked the Justice Department to look into whether Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller and Ron Wyden leaked details about a secret "black ops" CIA satellite program in December of 2004. That investigation is still on going, but I hear it may be wrapping up in the affirmative.

Moreover, it may be noted that Senator Rockefeller admitted back in November 2005, that he also made a trip to Syria in 2002 to discuss "The President's intentions" reference to the upcoming invasion of Iraq. A move which I understand didn't sit well with administration officials.

Of course Senator Rockefeller is the architect of the current Demorcatic game plan on Iraq as the infamous "Rockefeller Memo" showed.

If this information is acurate, it will also confirm the suspicions voiced here, and here after the NSA story broke that in fact Senator Rockefeller, along with recently 'resigned" FISA Judge James Robertson – an outspoken critic of the President and the NSA program.

Wonder why there was no press coverage of this .. very strange

U.S. Senator Rockefeller Angry About Mine Miscommunication

1-6-06

Such miscommunication "never should have happened."

Story by The Associated Press

TALLMANSVILLE, W.Va. (AP) - U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller says the miscommunication that led families to believe that 12 miners had survived this week's Upshur County mine explosion is an outrage.

He says the families were really let down and hurt -- and that it never should have happened.

Rockefeller made his comments last night while visiting Sago Baptist Church, which served as a gathering place for the miners' families as they awaited word on the fate of their loved ones.

A little before midnight Tuesday, the families received word that all but one of the 13 miners who had been trapped in the Sago Mine since early Monday were alive. They didn't find out until three hours later that only one had survived.

Both Rockefeller and fellow West Virginia Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd received the erroneous information from the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. And both senators say the agency neglected to call them back when the mistake was realized.

By Freeper Malia

As cheerefully borrowed from Sean Hannity's Website:

actually - this came from The Lunch Box and I was not certain i could post from there --- Mary I wasn't snubbing your request. I did post it in our Daily Thread..

The Democrat Memo Leaked from Senate Intl We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) 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. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).

3) 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. In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

Summary

Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.

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.