,Never mind here is our "rising star" trying to look presedential LOLOL.
Posted on 01/22/2006 5:21:05 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, January 22nd, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; University of Maryland's men's basketball coach Gary Williams.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.
THIS WEEK (ABC): John Kerry, D-Mass.; Reps. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., and Jane Harman, D-Calif., chairman and ranking Democrat of the House Intelligence Committee; actor Gary Sinise.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz; formerUnited Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke; former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger; South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon.
What is very important to note about all of these Liberal or so-called Democrat websites is the lack of civility, the filth and depravity that is spewed forth and there is nobody to discipline these bloggers or posters. They have no decency,no honor, and they talk like 10 year old juvenile delinquents learning how to use the F word. They do not want any kind of feedback or discussion. I personally will never darken the door of any of these websites again. What I find amazing lately is that kind of filth is being brought into hearing rooms and on National News Programs. It used to be that cable was the place for R rated conversation, now it is everywhere.
They can't. They're all birds of a feather and flock together.
Ya know .. I am just waiting for the bolt of lighting to come down from the sky with all the hypocrisy and lies from the Dems party
BTW .. take note the things the Dem Leaders are saying is what we on the Internet have been saying about them for years
Thanks, I always look forward to your media nuggets! BTW, where do you get your info?
"Matthews says Abramoff is the biggest scandal for republicans since Watergate"
Why does no one mention the FACT that ALGORE has never repaid the hundreds of thousands he received illegally from those Buddist Monks???
not one cent!
The sad truth is Democrats are not against the wiretaps, just againt Bush having the opportunity to do them. It's all politics, and the heck with the country.
The Gorelick case is interesting too since she was the one who proposed creating the wall of separation higher than it was before. That seems to be contradictory.
VERY good point!
Bingo!
I think we have found a replacement for "Lil Dick Gephardt" in "Lil Dick Turbin". We may have to shorten it to "LDT". Maybe Rush will enlighten us on the new "moniker".
Not sure I can take anything coming from Durbin as worthy of consideration.
At least Rush will be back tomorrow...last week was a bad one for him to be out.
I need to keep reminding myself that we Freepers are tiny, tiny group, relatively speaking. What we pick up on as glaringly obvious is filtered out by the time it reached the vast majority of our fellow Americans.
Up thread it is noted that what we do, is to relentlessly document the truth as reported both in the MSM and from personal knowledge and experience. Folks with big voices in the New Media look here, and get that out to more and more people everyday.
Welcome to Free Republic Douglas.
That's because they troll here to find out what Rove is ordering us to say and do next. Oh, and to try to crack our "code". Remember Algore and his accusation about conservatives speaking in code?
I think the language and content of your TV is still a higher standard than ours. After 9.00pm anything goes or seems to to me.
No longer are films cut to omit the F word if shown after 9.00pm it is there in all its glory.
Durbin has very little credibility as far as I'm concerned. He is, however, the second ranking Democrat in the Senate. If nothing else, he gives some indication of what they are going to try next and what they think they can get away with.
,That's the case that was reversed by ...
In Re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. Rev. 2002)
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html <- HTML
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/FISCR_opinion.pdf <- PDF
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf <- Alt. PDF
"Sen. Durbin was on FNS a bit ago here and made the claim that Clinton approached congress to change FISA to allow his breakin of Aldrich Aimes home. Is that right? Do you, or anyone else, remember that?
His inference was Clinton went to congress for approval while Bush has not. This just does not sound right to me. Maybe I missed something?"
Hi Morgan (good luck w the Broncos today)
I heard part of what he said (I was reading FR, so missed most of it). A couple of things I thought I heard him say were: 1) the law/President's authority doesn't include wiretapping as part of physical searches, and 2) Klintoon went to Congress to get wiretapping included in physical searches. I didn't hear the bit re Ames; however, I seem to recall reading something to that effect.
Klintoon included wiretapping in physical searches and Presient Bush has gone to Congress and kept several members informed all along (the Dims forget to mention this).
Jonathan Turley was on a radio show when I was driving home from work within the last week or so and kept insisting w BOR that the President broke the law and that wiretapping is not considered 'physical' and was therefore not covered (BOR felt that the President was working to protect the American people, which is his job, and that even if it is found that the wiretapping is unconstitutional (which he doesn't think it will be) no one will charge the President w wrongdoing. Turley did not concur and IIRC impeachment was mentioned. As a side note: I've read that on Friday on C-Spin, the Dems under the authority of Conyers, other Dem lefties held a comm meeting of just Dems with people like J. Turley, Moveon, The Truth Project, to give America reasons to impeach the President over this so-called "domestic" spying.
Turley, et al should chat w Klintoon and Gorelick about physical searches being included in wiretapping:
The Wisdom in Wiretaps
Bush critics seek war-powers loopholes to benefit terrorists.
Saturday, January 7, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
The Bush Administration's use of warrantless wiretaps in the war on terrorism continues to generate controversy, and Congress is planning hearings. Some of the loopier elements of the Democratic Party have even suggested the wiretaps are grounds for impeachment. But the more we learn about the practice, the clearer it is that the White House has been right to employ and defend it.
The issue is not about circumventing normal civilian Constitutional protections, after all. The debate concerns surveillance for military purposes during wartime. No one would suggest the President must get a warrant to listen to terrorist communications on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. But what the critics are really insisting on here is that the President get a warrant the minute a terrorist communicates with an associate who may be inside in the U.S. That's a loophole only a terrorist could love.
To the extent the President's critics are motivated by anything other than partisanship, their confusion seems to involve a 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA provides a mechanism by which the executive can conduct warrant-approved surveillance under certain circumstances. But FISA covers only a limited number of intelligence-gathering scenarios. And no Administration--Democrat or Republican--has recognized FISA as a binding limit on executive power.
Jimmy Carter's Attorney General, Griffin Bell, emphasized when FISA passed that the law "does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution." And in the 1980 case of United States v. Truong, the Carter Administration successfully argued the government's authority to have conducted entirely domestic, warrantless wiretaps of a U.S. citizen and a Vietnamese citizen who had been passing intelligence to the North Vietnamese during the 1970s Paris peace talks.
In 1994, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick also asserted an "inherent authority" not just to warrantless electronic surveillance but to "warrantless physical searches," too. The close associate of Hillary Rodham Clinton told Congress that much intelligence gathering couldn't be conducted within the limits placed on normal criminal investigations--even if you wanted to for the sake of appearances. For example, she added, "it is usually impossible to describe the object of the search in advance with sufficient detail to satisfy the requirements of the criminal law."
Some critics have argued that the surveillance now at issue could have been conducted within the confines of FISA. But that doesn't appear to be true. FISA warrants are similar to criminal warrants in that they require a showing of "probable cause"--cause, that is, to believe the subject is an "agent of a foreign power." But if the desired object of surveillance is a phone number found on 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's computer, you may not even know the identity of its owner and you can't show probable cause.
Nor does the actual track record of FISA argue for the sacredness of judicial oversight of intelligence gathering. In the 1990s, FISA judges nitpicked warrant requests to the extent that Ms. Gorelick and others believed FISA required a complete "wall" of separation between foreign intelligence gathering and U.S. criminal investigators. One consequence was the FBI's failure to request a warrant to search alleged "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui's computer. Only after 9/11 did FISA's appeals panel rule that such a wall had never been necessary, and did the Patriot Act destroy it once and for all.
Other critics accept the President's inherent power but say he still should have asked Congress to approve the wiretaps. But some in Congress were informed of the wiretaps and did nothing to stop them. Instead, the ranking Democrat on Senate Intelligence, Jay Rockefeller, wrote a private letter to Vice President Dick Cheney expressing his "lingering concerns" and saying he'd keep it on file for posterity--or more precisely, for posterior-covering. The Senator then released the letter after the story became public as a way to play "gotcha."
If Mr. Rockefeller had been serious about his objections in 2003, he should have told Mr. Cheney to cease and desist or that he'd try to pass legislation to stop it. After reading Mr. Rockefeller's letter of self-absolution, we can understand if Mr. Cheney concluded that the wiretapping was too important to the war on terror to risk seeking an explicit legislative endorsement from so feckless a Congress. The way the Members have played politics with the Patriot Act is another reason not to give Congress a chance to micromanage war-fighting decisions.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007783
To point #2, perhaps Turban Durbin should refresh his memory on Clinton:
Dereliction Of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton
Cato Institute ^ | March 31, 1997
Posted on 01/16/2006 6:23:41 PM PST by hipaatwo
Very long article, here's a sample:
The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping.
Warrantless "National Security" Searches
The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559291/posts
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.