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.
..sometimes that biting Irish sarcasm doesn't come through clearly in my writing--(note the little winking emoticon in my post)
Did the congress pass new appropriations when they changed the electronic surveillance laws a couple of months ago? Nope, the didn’t. Do you think the NSA is sitting around waiting for the next omnibus appropriations bill? No. And the DHS does not have to wait for the next appropriations bill either. They have $800K left of 1.2 billion already appropriated for border security. The Secure Fence act redirected how that border security was to proceed. If it didn’t, they would not have 20 miles of it built already, with a promise for many more over the coming months.
But you can keep pretending.
That is a ping. Not the abuse button.
Once again you prove you don’t understand a thing about civics. The budget for personnel was already in place for the NSA, they already had the equipment. The fence, however is a tangible item that needs funding to be built. Therefore, it requires appropriations. The Secure Fence Act did NOT authorize more funding, it only detailed where the fence should be located. You apparently are not good at math either...they have enough to build 25 miles at the estimated $3M/mile. with the $50M that was not withheld from the $1.2B.
You are still calling out the moderator to the thread...what is the difference? Another disengenuous copout.
Please copy and paste my ‘copout’. What copout did I make?
Oh, Walter, the “You” in my post was directed to rn, not to you. I saw that tongue in your cheek! :)
That wasn’t my point in posting that. Hunter supporters are well known for becoming irate when it comes to Thompson, they just love to hit the Thompson threads and trash him...just thought I’d have some fun and level the playing field a little, especially since Calpernia was trying to pass this off as some kind of investigative thread when given his/her recent posting history, his/her motive is clear. They’re really not as smart as they think they or their candidate are. They ignore facts when presented, dear Hunter can do no wrong...phhhht! It makes me nauseous.
{Yawn}...Okay, I have made my points and now I am tired of playing this game, I'll take my ball and go to another thread now.
We must try to keep in mind that Calpernia did not write this piece. William Saffire wrote it.
LOL! When you were a kid, I’ll bet you were always the cop in “cops and robbers”. Now you are playing “cop” on FR. :)
BS. What do you know about NSA foreign operations? Electronics and software and personnel are very expensive. Additional translators, more $$.
You are blowing smoke.
This thread is relevant to the campaign finance laws for the case on Hsu. The GOP and RNC use the Clintons as the only issue to raise money for their cause.
The Fred supporters say Thompson is the only one that can beat Hillary.
Well, here is the moment for all of us to take down the Clinton Crime Family. Even Fred stated:
You all should be screaming how right he was. Why aren't you?
He is right. Here is the redux.
You have no point other than distraction from this thread.
Ha...got you there...I work with the DoD...try again smartypants. Also, show me in Hunter’s bill where funding was provided...and I want a link to the source. The clock is running...tick...tick...tick....
Are you union?
Is this it?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/
The Secure Fence Act Builds On Progress Securing The Border
-More than doubled funding for border security - from $4.6 billion in 2001 to $10.4 billion this year;
Maybe so, but that is not why you posted it, that is my point and I made it well. Bye now.
Actually, you didn’t make any point.
And I hope you are lying about working for the DOD.
Are you posting on a message forum from work?
I find it absolutely frightening that someone from the DOD would be on a message forum attacking citizens for taking interest in news and politics and spreading lies about Congressmen the serve on the House Arms Committee.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109-367) was enacted October 26, 2006[1] in the United States. Its primary purpose is to build 700 miles of new fencing along the United States–Mexico border with the intention of controlling illegal immigration into the United States of America. It passed 80-19 in the Senate and 283-138 in the House. No funding was allocated to the fence at the time the bill was passed. However, funding will eventually be allocated to the project, which will determine how much of the fence is to be built.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush signed a bill Thursday authorizing the construction of a fence along one-third of the 2,100-mile (3,360-kilometer) U.S. border with Mexico, but missing from the legislation is a means to pay for it.
The act provides no funding mechanism for the fence, though a $1.2 billion appropriation was approved as part of a bill the president signed this month. There are no concrete numbers, but estimates suggest the fence would cost twice that amount. The earlier bill, however, stipulates that the $1.2 billion could be used for a fence, lighting, vehicle barriers and high-tech equipment.
As I pointed out in my other post on this thread, they withheld $950M until the plans are approved by the Appropriations Committee, so they only have $50M, which built the 20 miles that pissant is crowing about.
Ugh...no way.
The they would be congress, no?
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.