Disorder in the Court (FISA)

The Weekly Standard ^ | January 2, 2006 | David Tell, for the Editors

[AmishDude]

Post #34 seems to be a little kooky to me. It's funny because Lamberth left the court in '02 and his 20 rejections don't match with the stats in the article (only 8 rejected before 2003).

Lamberth has been in the thick of a lot of things, but I'm not sure he's what that post accuses him of being.

[Arizona Carolyn]

They are. Did you see that Lisa Murkowski wrote a rebuttal to the Washington Post editorial?

[Marine_Uncle]

"They are. Did you see that Lisa Murkowski wrote a rebuttal to the Washington Post editorial?"
No. I did not see any rebuttal articles. But that is ok. I am sure we shall see much written about ANWR over a period of time. I am incidently of the pursuasion we should explore and drill where it makes sense to do so. And I would assume the good Senator put things straight concerning our need to drill for oil.

[Mo1]

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

Their John Dean is out there ... my guess s/he is too afraid of the Clinton's and the power they still hold to speak out about it

But they will ... eventually

[Mo1]

I can relate

[Arizona Carolyn]

All great questions. I hope someday we know the true (non media-spun) answers. My guess regarding the switchboard is Cooper didn't have Rove's private numbers -- another reason to disbelieve Rove going out of his way to tell Cooper about Plame.

Could it be the MSM was trying to set up the administration via Rove and Cooper was in cohoots with Wilson? Certainly far-fetched, but nothing suprises me.

[Arizona Carolyn]

While I agree there is no definitive book on the Clinton(s) there is enough written by Barbara Olsen, Bill Gertz and others that one begins to connect all the dots... unfortunately, getting anyone to really sit up and pay attention to the real Clinton stories is another issue altogether. They tout the anti-Bush books with a trumpet and sweep the Clinton books under carpets and trash the authors beyond belief.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the information and insight!

[Zack Nguyen]

The best book written on the Clinton's thus far is Partners in Power by Roger Morris. It is a liberal book, but it digs deeper into the Clinton's background than any other book, I think.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look for it.

[Zack Nguyen]

The purpose of the "wall of separation" between the CIA and the FBI, per the memo from Ass't Atty Gen'l Jamie Gorelick, was allegedly to prevent foreign intelligence from being used in domestic criminal prosecutions.

Yes, but why (legally speaking) would anyone care if it were used in domestic criminal prosecutions? Is it because of the lack of probable cause if a crime is discovered in the course of intelligence surveillance, which does not depend on probable cause to initiate an investigation? Or is it because of security concerns, i.e. not wanting to reveal sources and methods in a trial? You and I know about the Chinese connection, but I ask about the legitimate legal argument (if one exists.)

Sorry to keep bugging you about this, been wondering for awhile. I'm not a lawyer (if you can't tell.) :)

[Congressman Billybob]

Interesting questions you raise, but the answer is much simpler than that. Congress decided long ago that the CIA and all other foreign intelligence agencies should not, in general, operate within the US. That law made it illegal for foreign intelligence to be used, generally, in domestic criminal prosecutions.

It's not a matter of logic, or reliability of evidence. It's simply a matter of "because I said so" from Congress.

And, ask any questions you want, any time you choose. I rely on the expertise of Freepers. So can you.

Cordially,

John / Billybob

[Zack Nguyen]

Thank you Congressman!

[shield]

bttt

[Txsleuth]

bttt