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.
China has been a current topic for over 10 years.
>Are you seriously trying to tell me you didn’t post this to boost Hunter’s dismal ratings?<
Is an informed electorate a threat to your candidate? One don’t aim to boost one’s candidate’s ratings by exposing important information on another candidate. An informed electorate makes a wiser vote. And never has it been more important to do just that than in this election.
25 years.
Correction, ‘my perspective’ for over 10 years ;) I was speaking of my awareness.
That’s right. You are just a youngen.
::raspberry::
"Why don’t they trash other candidates who have higher ratings than Hunter (which means every other GOP candidate)?"
Trying to build up your candidate does not include wasting time posting anti whomever threads as I've seen so much from the Hunter and Romney supporters.
They should try just posting threads about their own candidate.
I can't remember ever posting an anti Hunter or Romney thread, only your that uninformed would one of these articles sway your opinion.
It looks like a everyone against Thompson party here lately.
Then you are a little wiser about Hunter now aren’t you..so what is your complaint? And I already said I am not a FredHead, I haven’t made a decision yet. That being said, I’d prefer a candidate that knows the Constitution and from my research, Hunter doesn’t know the difference between Congressional Authorization and Appropriation or he does and is just posturing for votes on the border fence. Either way, it is a black mark against him with me. Another black mark has just been created in that Hunter supporters are being disengenuous about their motivations in posting this thread. Raising the bar of integrity? I think not.
Sound bites put together are nothing but spin, and your posts on Hunter are pure spin. We are aware of the incidents, but we are also aware of the truth, which was NOT represented in those sound bites.
You must be a Ron Paul supporter. Every good patriot knows and reveres the Constitution, and Duncan Hunter is no exception, believe me.
Re-read my #62.
Thanks, Walter. Sometime in the distant past I heard that William Saffire was a Republican.
You are full of it. Hunter’s law superseded any previous fence nonsense.
Hey, I know! What’s Bob Dole up to?!
..I am witnessing many of late who are possessed with dark, bilious vapors...
Yep. Time to bring it on. Only difference is that the Hunter supporters won’t be hitting abuse and crying like little girls.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.Hunter's insinuations that the fence has been funded are WRONG and that is no spin. Here are excerpts from a recent article in response to Hunter's claim that the border fence funding is available...
DHS Spokeswoman Laura Keehner's comment:It is also a fact that Congress withheld $950M of the $1.2B previously appropriated for the fence:While the Secure Fence Act has authorized more miles, “there is a difference between authorization and appropriations,” she said.
Hunter spokesman Joe Kaspar's response:
“Hunter believes laws are meant to be followed” and “the money is there.”
The fence law dictates that in Texas a fence would stretch east out of El Paso; from Del Rio to Eagle Pass and Laredo to Brownsville, leaving a huge gap between Del Rio and Laredo. It also sets out locations in California and calls for fencing off the Arizona border from Mexico. Though the total fencing was believed to be about 700 miles, congressional researchers say it is closer to about 850 miles.So there you have it, with no spin. If he doesn't know the difference between authorization and appropriation then he doesn't understand the Constitution as well as you think he does.A separate law funding Homeland Security Department spending provided $1.2 billion for the fencing. But that law also withholds $950 million of the sum until the House and Senate appropriations committees approve the department's plan for spending the money, giving those committees say over the design, location and length of the fence.
Oh geez...where are all the ORLY? pictures when I need one...
To: Admin Moderator; ravingnutterAnd he may be special to you, but Hunter's laws don't supersede the Constitution.Any reason why you can’t start a different thread with that?
22 posted on 09/14/2007 9:37:43 AM PDT by Calpernia
You do know that Hunter was NOT mixed up in Cunningham’s covert doings. Being the stalwart man he is, Rep. Hunter did not desert a friend when that friend was in trouble. He also did NOT condone what Cunningham did in any way, shape or form.
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.