Posted on 12/27/2005 12:53:13 PM PST by RWR8189
I'm having computer problems so I'll log off for the evening with this:
The FISA Court also said the powers given to criminal investigators by Ashcroft might allow the government to illegally use intelligence information in criminal cases. It noted that the Department of Justice, under the Clinton administration, had abused the FISA process and misled the court at least 12 times and that the government had admitted FBI officials had provided erroneous information to the court on more than 75 requests for warrants and wiretaps.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth signed the ruling, which wasn't released until August by his replacement, Presiding U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. It was the first-ever published opinion by the FISA Court.
Upon the ruling's release, the Justice Department filed an appeal citing the FISA Court's failure to consider the expanded intelligence sharing powers legalized under the Patriot Act. The Department of Justice also argued that the May 17 ruling violated the Constitutional separation of powers between the judiciary and executive branches.
Interesting that:
1) Lamberth is no longer on the court (FISA).
2) Clinton abused FISA many times and no one on the left seemed to mind.
3) FISA published their first ever opinion publicly.
Thanks again for publishing this information about Lamberth, Carolyn. See you tomorrow as freepers find even more interesting information overnight.
excellent point! We know Hillary specifically chose Janet Reno because they could manipulate her.
Because of when the Gorelick memo was issued, which admitted in its text that it "went beyond what the law required," it may have been done to prevent foreign intelligence on China from revealing Clinton crimes with Chinese money in his campaigns.
I suspect that, too, but the Clintons have never had their "John Dean," just one person near the center who turned honest and told all that he knew. Maybe Ron Brown or Vince Foster would have done that, the first because the prosecutors were closing in on him and he didn't want to go down alone. The latter because he had an attack of conscience. But, surprisingly, both of them are dead.
Congressman Billybob
Thank you.
Last Sunday...the roundtable on the Fox Sunday News show...was asked to name their "winners and losers" of this year...and Brit was first..
He named as his loser, Duke Cunningham...and when he did, Chris Wallace made the comment...that there would "probably be another one, from TExas next year"...referencing Delay, I am sure...
Boy, that made my blood boil...and NO ONE, not even Brit asked him why he said that..
Don't you think it is possible..that regardless of how much/little we can get from ANWR...that just the psychological aspect of us starting to produce more of our own oil...
might play on the Saudis...even a little..thinking that we won't "need" them as much..so might be more inclined to come down harder on them for their dastardly ways??
OOOPS...I meant to add Hugo Chavez to the scenario I just posted re: Saudi.
I would have said 'not surprisingly' both are dead. I have no doubt they both met with Arkancide.
I missed that... actually I missed all the Sunday talk shows this week..... probably a good thing, that, too, would have ticked me off and I think Cunningham is a slime, but then it seems, once you start reading about his links with Pelosi's family, the dem hero Murtha isn't any better...
bump for later read
I kept hearing how easy it was to get a warrant, why didn't Bush get warrants, judges just hand out warrants when asked without asking questions...well, now we know why the President had to resort to other legal remedies.
Thanks for the ping! You'll find Judge Lamberth's name all over the Downside Legacy. He was hard as nails on the Clinton Administration which offended the court many times and in many ways. Having dealt with that for nearly a decade, I wouldn't be surprised if he was soured against the executive branch altogether thus becoming an obstruction to national security under Bush. But I do not suspect him of being intentionally harmful.
One of the reports is specific that the President has powers as Commander in Chief that are not subject to THAT court.
Mary Jo White has a LONG dissertation on this site which I have not yet read...but will do so today....if I can.
Just google FISA.
Cooper actually chased Libby down the next day (July 11th...and I believe, finally got ahold of him at his home. Doesn't make much sense to me unless you are on a mission "to involve him". Why even call both parties on the same thing??
Why didn't Cooper call Wilson himself??
I'm trying to pick up my lower jaw from the floor.
Appreciate the pings for post 34. While it appears Judge Royce is prone to temper and did much to obstruct and intimidate the FBI and shut down communications between agencies, I find the piece in #34 a little thin on proof of ties to Islamic extremism.
That said, it certainly does appear Lamberth should be investigated. But then, so should much of Washington at this point. sigh.
The following is a quote regarding reporting requirements by the FISA: "We oppose a requirement to disclose publicaly the number of FISA targets that are United States persons. Congress has in the past considered and rejected proposals to require disclosure of this to the general public rather than to the Intellignece Committees. In 1984, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was asked by the American Civil Liberties Union to consider making public the number of U.S. persons who have been FISA survellance targets. (S. Rep. No. 98-660, 98th Congress...) The Committee rejected that proposal because "the benefits of such disclosure for public understanding would not outweigh the damage to FBI counterintelligence capabilities that can reasonably be expected to result". This line of thought continues: Please read. Maybe someone can summarize it.
There's another statement in one of the FISA reports about the President and assumed powers that he has. I will find it but I have to go now.
Thank you Congressman. I suspect that the Clinton's "John Dean" may not come until Clinton has finished her term or been eliminated from Presidential contention.
I look forward all the time to the definitive book on the Clinton's, which has not yet been written. In fact I wonder if it is even being written. I suspect when it is we will find out about a lot of things that surprise even us. I hope we don't have to wait as long as we did for LBJ's definitive book (Robert Caro.)
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.