Replies

"And so nobody in the government knew who these guys were. Nobody at all. Right"

Yes they did, but that is not the point. The point is that Grover 'had the con' and he didn't come clean, use good judgement, etc. He abused the trust people placed in him.

Maybe he was a man in a hurry trying to prove his point about Muslim coalition potential, or to look like he was delivering more votes and money or... Whatever. Who cares?

On the way he made big mistakes and repeatedly compounded them, lied about them and snarled out unconscionably at his colleagues and seniors who were trying to help him and the cause avoid what has already come to pass and what will.

That's the Grover part and that's 95% of it. Period

About law enforcement and intell: in sum, in the process of developing cases you want to determine how many people are really involved, how do they implement their tradecraft, are you compromised, are they in league with others yet undetermined, how do they move money and people, etc.

If it is an international terror case, which several of Grover's people are parts of (doesn't that just chill anybody on this thread???) -- then it takes even longer, years often, to piece it together, follow the leads, test theories and convince yourself you've got it all. And then convince, at about a hundred points along the way, US atorneys, Justice lawyers, CIA or DIA who may be running the same traps for different reasons, and foreign government liaisons, and the FISA court judge for the wire taps, and other squads and agencies for support resources -- and all of this takes huge time. Now, why might you watch this for even longer -- because you may be able to stop a 911.

And if that is the consideration, then there is a signoff that the mission has to be protected and prosecuted in the utmost secrecy and brought to a successful conclusion.

This might for instance include simultaneous raids in 10 countries, some of whose officials are notorously corrupt, infiltrated, etc., or in which you may first also have to exfiltrate one of your own double agents, or a source, or a family 'pawn', etc. Pick your options.

Now given all that, the complications and permutations of which you have doubltess seen in Clancy movies or somesuch, -- Do you really, Any of you, think that even if you knew, from a wiretap, that an Al Arian was going into the White House via Grover -- that you then would risk all of this to raise a red flag to Grover (who already knows who Sami is and you know is taking money from the same source and might be involved more deeply)? or warn some Gs-11 placeholder in Public Liaison (who you know knows al Arian via past Muslim work or shared family ties)? Are you goign to say, what? -- that there all this counter-terrror op is going on worldwide, and in 72 FBI field offices, all related to this guy -- so "Tsk tsk, better call off that meeting" -- just to protect Grover and Public Liaison from Grover's cupidity or stupidty, or corruption, or who-cares-what?

Or even, in fact, to protect the President from some possible future headline embroglio.

NO WAY IN HELL! THE JOB IS TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY FROM ANOTHER 9/11, or whatever dastardly deed is afoot.

At the very most, you want to watch the meeting if you have time and resources, and if you can get a judge and a superior to approve it (never happen), so that you can see if AlArian has other contacts in the building, what is he asking for at the meeting (e.g., More muslims working for TSA at airports to prove that we are earnestly against profiling? His chosen Muslims, from his special training charity? The ones we don't want inside the perimeter with box cutters, etc. etc.)??? He may come home and tell his wife, so you'll pick it all up without the hassle of going into the WH.

But actually, there are over 1000 active terror-related cases in the US, and there are 13,000 agents. It takes multiple agents to do a case (3 for 24 hour moving posts for intance),so you can do the math and see that if all the FBI did 24/7 was terror, it would still not likely be judged a good use of resources to dog AlArian to a White House mtg. Even if it is going blessedly to be in English so you don't have to wait a week for a translation.

This is a rough-out of how it really works, what some of the equities are, and how low on the pole political judgment or public relations or Presidential embarassment comes.

Too many people on this thread seem more concerned, or comfortable, with the political aspect, Norquist or otherwise -- and not enough concerned with or knowledgable about the terrorism angle and how it is worked -- which is mostly what all this is about. I have found it rather appalling that people glibly dismiss the idea of Grover, or anyone else, trying to bring, for instance, Alamoudi's lawyer Nawash into the party, the tent, or the WH for that matte -- much less doing a fundraiser for him at Grover's home. How is it somehow within the accepted realm of rationalization to say that this is all 'no big deal', quite normative, and that Al Qadea or Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists 'need lawyers too', and we should adjust and calm down about it? After all, Grover must have his reasons. Passing strange.

Yes they did, but that is not the point.

No, that's exactly the point. If the intelligence and law enforcement communities can't be bothered to communicate with the folks they're legally supposed to be reporting to, that's a problem, and it's an institutional problem that goes way the hell beyond Grover Norquist.

If it is an international terror case, which several of Grover's people are parts of (doesn't that just chill anybody on this thread???) -- then it takes even longer, years often, to piece it together, follow the leads, test theories...

Whatever. That's a nice story, but at this point, that's all it is - a nice story. I don't know any such thing, and neither, I suspect, do you.