Don't worry, they have an "R" next to their name and they're ELECTABLE!! God knows electablity is more important than anything else!
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.
Do you understand the concept of superseding laws? How dense can you be.
Only in your feeble mind. You cannot show me anywhere that it says it supersedes the funding language in that bill. It only details where the fence should go, that has nothing to do with the funding. Yes, it authorized the fence...no it did not fund it...period.
Actually, you do have to explain yourself. Some of your comments are now invoking an official capacity.
fool. All Bush, Chertoff and Snow would have to say is that the Secure fence act didn’t have funding, so we can’t build it. Instead, they are making excuses why its going so slow.
This discussion between appropriation and authorization went on last month. So, I asked my rep what the real story was.
He told me that Hunter is correct. The fence was authorized and the money was appropriated and sitting in Homeland Security’s budget for that purpose-building the fence.
However, there were people in Washington who did not want the fence built who were trying to take back the appropriated funds to keep the fence from being built.
It looks like all you did was link to a Fox News story about what the democrats and RINOS are doing- finding ways to take back the already appropriated funds.
I am failing to see your evidence that Duncan Hunter is wrong on this. Your link confirms what Hunter and my rep have both said.
Don't worry, they have an "R" next to their name and they're ELECTABLE!! God knows electablity is more important than anything else!
It's pretty hard to select USSC nominee's when you're sitting in Kalifornia in your home district as a Congressman.
Without a viable, electable candidate, you ain't even in the game.
http://www.chinagatethemovie.com/whoiswho.html
Fred Thompson
Read the Chinagate Report
from Law & Order star, Senator Fred Thompson
http://www.chinagatethemovie.com/Chinagate_Report_Main.html
A film by John J. McGough
Sandy Berger
Clinton National Security Advisor 1997-2001; Deputy
National Security Advisor 1993-1997; convicted of
mishandling classified material.
Sandy Berger
Ron Brown
Clinton Commerce Secretary, 1993-1996. Investigated for
bribery. Deceased.
Ron Brown
Johnny Chung
DNC fund-raiser; convicted felon; received $300,000
from China’s equivalent of CIA Director for the
Democratic Party.
Johnny Chung
CITIC
Chinese state-owned investment company.
CITIC
Bill Clinton
U.S. President 1993-2001.
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Senator; First Lady 1993-2001.
Hillary Clinton
Christopher Cox
Congressman; Chairman of Cox Report Committee.
Christopher Cox
John Deutch
Clinton CIA Director 1995-1996; pardoned by Clinton for
misuse of classified material.
John Deutch
Louis Freeh
Clinton FBI Director 1993-2001.
Louis Freeh
Al Gore
U.S. Vice President 1993-2001.
Al Gore
John Huang
DNC fund-raiser; Clinton Commerce Dept. official
1993-1995; Lippo Group employee, convicted felon.
John Huang
Maria Hsia
DNC fund-raiser; convicted felon.
Maria Hsia
Hsi Lai Temple
U.S. Buddhist temple; illegally donated money to
Clinton campaign.
Hsi Lai Temple
Hughes
Electronics
U.S. satellite company; fined for illegal transfer of
missile technology to China.
Hughes Electronics
Ji Shengde
Former Chinese General in charge of military
intelligence; donated to Democratic Party; convicted
smuggler.
Ji Shengde
Jiang Zemin
President of China 1993-2003.
Jiang Zemin
Anthony Lake
Clinton National Security Advisor 1993-1997.
Anthony Lake
Lippo Group
Indonesian corporation involved in illegal campaign
donations.
Lippo Group
Liu Chaoying
Chinese Lt. General; executive at Chinese satellite
company.
No picture available
Loral Space &
Communications
U.S. Satellite company; fined for illegal transfer of
missile technology to China.
Hazel O’Leary
Clinton Energy Secretary 1993-1997.
Hazel O’Leary
Poly Technologies
Chinese distributor of military arms.
Janet Reno
Clinton Attorney General 1993-2001.
Janet Reno
James Riady
DNC fund-raiser; convicted felon; son of Lippo Group
owner.
James Riady
Bernard Schwartz
CEO of Loral; largest single donor to Clinton and
Democrats in 1996.
Bernard Schwartz
Ted Sioeng
Indonesian businessman with interests both in the
United States and China.
Ted Sioeng
Fred Thompson
Actor and Senator; possible presidential candidate;
Chairman of Senate Chinagate Committee.
Fred Thompson
Charlie Trie
DNC fund-raiser; convicted for illegal campaign
donations.
Charlie Trie
Wang Jun
Chairman of Poly Technologies and CITIC.
Wang Jun
Mr. Wu
Also known as Ng Lap Seng. Macau businessman with ties
to organized crime; advisor to the Chinese government.
Ng Lap Seng AKA Mr. Wu
A Strategic Partnership
Legislation in the 109th Congress
The 109th Congress enacted three pieces of legislation concerning border fencing. The REAL ID Act (P.L. 109-13), as previously noted, expanded DHS’ waiver authority to expedite the construction of border fencing.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367) directed DHS to construct five stretches of border fencing totaling roughly 850 miles.78
The FY2007 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295) provided $1.2 billion for the installation of fencing, infrastructure, and technology along the border; $31 million of this total was designated for the completion of the San Diego fence.79 In addition to these Acts, a number of bills with fencing related provisions were passed by the House and the Senate. H.R. 4437 which would have directed DHS to construct five stretches of fencing along the border, was passed by the House on December 16, 2005. S. 2611, which called for 370 miles of fencing to be constructed, was passed by the Senate on May 25, 2006.
S.Amdt. 4788 was added to the Department of Defense Appropriation bill, H.R. 5631, on August 2, 2006, and would have appropriated $1.8 billion to the National Guard for the construction of border fencing. H.R. 5631 was passed by the Senate on September 7, 2006; however, this fencing provision was stripped from the bill during conference.
P.L. 109-295, the FY2007 DHS Appropriations Act, provided $1.2 billion in funding for border fencing, infrastructure, and technology; combined with the supplemental appropriation provided by P.L. 109-234, the conferees noted that DHS would have $1.5 billion for border infrastructure construction in FY2007.80 The conferees directed DHS to submit an expenditure plan for this funding within 60 days of the bill’s enactment, and withheld $950 million of the funding until the plan is received and approved by the House and Senate Committees. However, the act did not place any restrictions on how DHS is to apportion this appropriation between fencing, infrastructure, and technology.
P.L. 109-367, the Secure Fence Act, originated in the House as H.R. 6061 and was passed on September 14, 2006. H.R. 6061 was passed by the Senate on September 29, 2006 and signed into law on October 26, 2006. The act directed DHS to construct two-layered reinforced fencing and additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors along five stretches of the southwest border. CBP has estimated that these stretches of fencing will total roughly 850 miles81 of the southern border. The five stretches of the border that DHS was required to fence were the 20 miles around Tecate, CA; from Calexico, CA to Douglas, AZ; from Columbus, NM to El Paso, TX; from Del Rio, TX to Eagle Pass, TX; and from Laredo, TX to Brownsville, TX. The act designated the roughly 370 mile portion of the fence between Calexico, CA, and Douglas, AZ, a priority area and directed DHS to ensure that “an interlocking surveillance camera system” is installed along this area by May 30, 2007, and that the fence is completed in this area by May 30, 2008. The act also designated a 30-mile stretch around Laredo, TX, as a priority area and directed DHS to complete this fencing by December 31, 2008. This language was similar to that passed earlier by the House in H.R. 4437. The fencing provisions in H.R. 4437 were largely identical to those in H.R. 6061, except that H.R. 4437 featured earlier construction deadlines for the priority areas identified by one year for the Calexico, CA, to Douglas, AZ, stretch of fencing and by two years for the 30-mile stretch around Laredo, TX.
In addition to the bills discussed there were a number of bills in the 109th Congress that would have expanded the current fencing and other forms of barriers at the international land border. Some of these bills would have required fencing to be constructed along the entire southwest border, others would have identified particular stretches of land which would receive fencing, and still others would have called for studies to determine whether fencing is a cost-effective way of securing the border.
Congressional Research Service Report
P.L. 109-367, the Secure Fence Act is what pissant is referring to. It provides no funding mechanism, it is only an authorization. Hunter says there is $800M available, but given the info above, there is clearly not, so he is wrong. I am not aware of any other funding for the fence other than in the 2008 DoD Appropriations bill (which hasn't passed) and no one has provided me with cites to their claims that the fence is funded other than quoting Hunter, who is wrong.
So POGO had it wrong, the enemy ain't us. POGO is the enemy. That's his trash. Democrats are always quick to generously share their guilty culpability...
But that being said, the President does obviously have the money laying around, "appropriated" or not, however, since his deputy claims to "be ontrack" for completion by the end of 2008.
My guess is that RN is not aware of a couple things. Unexpended previous appropriations that can be applied. For one.
And diversions of Defense monies for another pursuant to "Black" projects.
You're really starting to come around now. It's true. Without being elected, there is no power to do anything. That's why Tommy is done, btw. It doesn't matter how GOOD he is if he can't get elected.
You missed the point (look at the first line of my post about “this looks like fun”), it is not about truth, it is about Hunter supporters posting anti-Thompson articles ad nauseum and hijacking Fred threads. I’m just giving them a spoonful of their own medicine for a change. As far as credibility goes, Calpernia was trying to pass this off as an investigative piece on Hsu, when the site the article was posted from is clearly a Hunter support site and carries all of the same anti-Thompson articles she posted here (and from all indications is her own website, which is considered “pimping” on FR) , so their own honesty is suspect.
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.