Posted on 09/14/2007 8:48:57 AM PDT by Calpernia
Why, just as the investigation into Clinton campaign corruption was hitting pay dirt, did Fred Thompson suddenly strike a deal with Democrats to shift the hearings into a softer, gentler discussion of legislative changes?
Consider the momentum building:
1. Venerable Gore, now wisely hiring criminal lawyers, was shown to be fund-raising from federal property for his own campaign, which forced Janet Reno to shake up Justice's hapless bureaucracy - in hope of evading the law's mandate to seek court appointment of a real prosecutor.
2. Our rogue president, after selling face time to an engaging hustler for $300,000, was shown to have directed his aide to be ``supportive'' of the donor at the Energy Department. Mack McLarty swore this attempted fix was merely ``seeking information,'' echoing the words of Sherman Adams to excuse his improper intercession for Bernard Goldfine in 1958.
3. One of two Clinton 1992 fund-raisers who became high officials at Energy was shown to be a perjurer. ``Somebody's lying,'' concluded a senator. In that connection . . .
4. DNC chairman Don Fowler was shown disremembering conversations held with a CIA operative named Bob to help sanitize donor Roger Tamraz. This triggered a CIA Inspector General investigation likely to reveal abuse of authority within the Directorate of Operations.
With all that - plus evidence of China 's fund-funneling - what caused Fred Thompson to veer off into legislative la-la land? His reasons:
1. The coming week's hearings were to be Democrats' payback time, and GOP leaders did not want to offer a chance to argue ``everybody did it.''
2. Thompson thought he was running low on ammunition. The best witnesses - Huang, Middleton, Trie - were taking the Fifth or hiding overseas.
3. After a slow start that drew media derision, Thompson reached a level of interest and grudging respect that would be hard to maintain (ain't gonna get no betta); soon the pack's mantra would become ``petering out.''
4. Thompson believes this is the time for a deep breath; to see if New York U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White's prosecution of teamsters leads to the AFL and the White House's Harold Ickes (whom he will depose again); to press the Freeh-Reno crowd on the Asian connection; and in three weeks, to take another look at his hand.
By thus thinking tactically - about how the hearings ``play'' - Thompson is making a strategic blunder.
A serious Senate investigation has three purposes: first, to use its subpoena power to expose to public view, often in dull detail, the widespread wrongdoing and potential lawbreaking that corrupted a presidential election. Next, with the public educated and aroused, to shame the see-no-evil, conflicted Justice Department into action. Purpose three: to propose legislation to make certain future wrongdoing of this kind is prosecutable.
But just when the committee's exposing purpose was getting traction - when front pages and even TV network news shows were paying attention - Chairman Thompson cut away from the chase.
Because he mistakenly thought he was running out of fresh ammunition and running out of time, the Tennessee senator switched to the general legislative purpose. It was part of a deal with Trent Lott to steal a march on the Democrats' domination of campaign finance reform.
With Thompson taking his heavy breather, who will take up the torch? It's up to Intelligence Chairman Richard Shelby, who plans to examine Democratic penetration of the CIA, perhaps publicly, as former DCI John Deutch urges; Dan Burton and his House committee, bedeviled by cover-upper Henry Waxman but unencumbered by deadline; 41-year-old Mary Jo White; and slowpoke prosecutor Hickman Ewing Jr., administering water torture to Webster Hubbell.
Too bad about Fred Thompson's wimpout. Hope he catches his breath in time.
I didn’t say I worked for the DoD, I said I work with the DoD. I also never said what I originally posted about Hunter (re: Cunningham, etc.) was true. See, I can parse too. However, the fence information is fact.
As a member of DOD, what is your motive for policing a message forum?
Yes, Congress withheld $950M of the $1.2B until the Appropriations Committee approved the plans for the fence.
My thread wasn’t about the fence. That is what happens when you hijack a thread.
In what capacity do you work with the DOD since you brought it up?
So should we call you the Amazing Karnak now?
Good question.
Gee, I worked with the DOD for 9 years, genius. And I know very well expensive black ops programs are. And that is no different on the NSA side of things.
I already told you, the Secure Fence Act superseded the directives of the previous border language in the appropriations bill. If it did not, explain why they are building dual fence with a border patrol road as we speak. That was not in the Omnibus approprations bill 5441. this is the text of 5441 relating to borders:
BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY
For expenses for customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and technology, $1,187,565,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount provided under this heading, $1,159,200,000 is designated as described in section 520 of this Act: Provided further, That of the amount provided under this heading, $950,000,000 shall not be obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve a plan for expenditure, prepared by the Secretary of Homeland Security and submitted within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to establish a security barrier along the border of the United States of fencing and vehicle barriers, where practicable, and other forms of tactical infrastructure and technology, that—
(1) defines activities, milestones, and costs for implementing the program;
(2) demonstrates how activities will further the goals and objectives of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), as defined in the SBI multi-year strategic plan;
(3) identifies funding and the organization staffing (including full-time equivalents, contractors, and detailees) requirements by activity;
(4) reports on costs incurred, the activities completed, and the progress made by the program in terms of obtaining operational control of the entire border of the United States;
(5) includes a certification by the Chief Procurement Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the prime integrator and major subcontractors are established and a certification by the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an independent verification and validation agent is currently under contract for the project;
(6) complies with all applicable acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and best systems acquisition management practices of the Federal Government;
(7) complies with the capital planning and investment control review requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(8) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
(9) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.
Not a word about the double fence with a BP road. But keep right on pretending.
Why...are you paranoid? : ) No, I am not policing the site, just pointing out to others how disengenuous you are in saying this is an investigative thread.
“It was part of a deal with Trent Lott”
‘Nough said.
Okay...genius...can you read that it says that $950M is withheld until plans are approved. It says it right in your post. That is the ONLY funding that has been approved, no other funding has been approved for the fence...PERIOD.
Matter of fact, since you are now presenting yourself in an official type position, and you are accusing me of things, I’m taking major issue with your posting.
see 107. Raving nut seems to think that laws that supersede other laws must be re-appropriated. Little nutter apparently does not realize that it happens all the time.
What is your position with/in/on/affiliation with DOD please.
I just told you, the SECURE FENCE ACT SUPERSEDES THE LANGUAGE IN THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. My NSA example was a perfect demonstration of it. Though you think in all of your brilliance that it costs nothing to embark on a new program of foreign surveillance.
Also, I never said I worked in any "official" capacity, I thought the purpose of screen names on a forum was to be anonymous, so I am allowed to be vague and I will. And finally, pissant is still wrong, nothing in Hunter's bill addresses funding...period...end of discussion.
You identified yourself as being with the DOD. Explain that so there is no misunderstanding.
Bite me...I don’t owe you an explanation of anything. I work WITH the DoD and have clarified that it is not in a official capacity, that is all you need to understand. You don’t see me demanding to know where you work or live.
Secure Fence Act of 2006:IT DOESN'T AND THEREFORE, YOU ARE WRONG.Sec. 1: Short Title
Sec. 2: Achieving Operation Control on the Border
Requires DHS Secretary, within 18 months of enactment, to take all actions he determines are appropriate and necessary to achieve and maintain operation control over land and maritime borders, including:
systematic surveillance through more effective use of personnel & technology; and physical infrastructure enhancements such as additional checkpoints, roads and barriers; "Operational control" means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the U.S., including entries by terrorists, unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
Requires DHS Secretary, within one year of enactment and annually thereafter, to submit a report to Congress on progress made toward achieving this goal.
Sec. 3: Construction of Fencing and Security Improvements in Border Area from Pacific Ocean to Gulf of Mexico
Amends section 102(b) of IIRIRA (section on improvement of barriers at the border) by striking the words "near San Diego" (IIRIRA § 102(b) dealt only with construction of fencing and roads in the border area near San Diego), and by specifying that the DHS Secretary must provide for at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors. Such improvements must extend from:
10 miles west of the Tecate, CA POE to 10 miles east of same; 10 miles west of the Calexico, CA POE to 5 miles east of the Douglas, AZ POE; 5 miles west of the Columbus, NM POE to 10 miles east of El Paso, TX; 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, TX POE to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, TX POE; and 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, TX POE to the Brownsville, TX POE. With respect to the Calexico area, outlined above, the DHS Secretary must install an interlocking surveillance camera along such area by May 30, 2007 and must complete fence installation in this sector by May 30, 2008.
With respect to the Laredo area, outlined above, the DHS Secretary must ensure that fence construction from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, TX POE to 15 miles southeast of the Laredo, TX POE is completed by December 31, 2008. If the topography of a specific area has an elevation grade of 10 % or higher, the Secretary may use other means to secure the area.
Sec. 4: Northern Border Study
This section requires the DHS Secretary to conduct a study on the construction of a state-of-the-art barrier system along the northern international land and maritime border, including a discussion of both the necessity and feasibility of constructing such a system, and must report his findings to Congress within one year of enactment.
Sec. 5: Evaluation and Report Relating to Customs Authority to Stop Certain Fleeing Vehicles
Section 5 requires the DHS Secretary, within 30 days of enactment, to:
evaluate the authority of CBP personnel to stop vehicles that enter the U.S. unlawfully or that refuse to stop when ordered to do so, and compare such CBP authority with that of the Coast Guard to stop vessels under 14 USC, section 637, assessing whether such CBP authority should be expanded.
review the equipment and technology available to CBP personnel to stop the vehicles described above and assess whether better equipment & technology is available or should be developed.
evaluate the training provided to CBP personnel to stop vehicles as described above. The Secretary must submit a report to Congress within 60 days of enactment that contains the results of the evaluation described above.
No it supersedes it. Otherwise Chertoff would just say “show me the money, Duncan”.
July 1, 2007, Fox News Sunday:
Chris Wallace: Congress passed the Secure Fence Act in October of last year, mandating 700 miles of new fence along the SW border. Now congressman Duncan Hunter who comes from that part of the world, comes from San Diego, says that in fact, since that time in 8 months, the government has only built 13 miles of new fencing. Is that true sir?
Chertoff: Well what we’ve done, what we are working on, that we will complete by september is we’ll be up to 140 miles or 150 miles of fencing. As anybody who has ever built a fence or a wall knows Chris, you don’t build it one mile at a time. You take a chunk, like for example the 35 miles in the Barry Goldwater range in Arizona, you have to level the ground, you have to put a foundation in, you have to drive in the pillars, then you put the fencing in. In that case for instance, we are going to go from a handful of miles to 35 miles within a couple of months. We are on track to get about 370 miles done by the end of 08.
Once again, game set and match. Nowhere have the dems committees approved 370 miles of Hunter fence. Only the Secure Fence Act has done that.
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.