Posted on 01/29/2006 5:01:14 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, January 29nd, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.; Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.; Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean; former Commerce Secretary Don Evans.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): President Bush.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Dominique Dawes, Olympic gymnast.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : White House counselor Dan Bartlett; Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; former President Carter; former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Just tell your beau that if there are ever wedding bells...we get to be your cyber-bridesmaids....LOL
I'm not surprised, but I think I remember there being an evidentiary ruling allowing the results of the search of his house to be used before that.
There may be, but I'm not aware of it. My belief stems from a GAO report, portions below.
REPORTNUM: GAO-01-780
ACCNO: A01392
TITLE: FBI Intelligence Investigations: Coordination Within
Justice on Counterintelligence Criminal Matters Is Limited
DATE: 07/16/2001
SUBJECT: Domestic intelligence
Electronic surveillance
Federal intelligence agencies
Interagency relations
Law enforcement agencies
Military intelligence
Search and seizure
... These officials suggested that the application of the primary purpose test had not raised potential coordination problems between the FBI and the Criminal Division until the Aldrich Ames case. In 1994, Aldrich H. Ames, a Central Intelligence Agency official, was arrested on espionage charges of spying for the former Soviet Union and subsequently Russian intelligence. The FISA Court authorized an electronic surveillance of the computer and software within the Ames' residence. In addition, the Attorney General had authorized a warrantless physical search of the residence. At that time, FISA did not apply to physical searches. DOJ obtained a guilty plea from Ames who was sentenced to life in prison without parole.Criminal Division and FBI officials said that some in DOJ were concerned that, had the Ames case proceeded to trial, early and close coordination between the FBI and the Criminal Division might have raised a question as to whether the primary purpose of the surveillance and searches of Ames' residence had been a criminal investigation and not intelligence gathering. According to these officials, had this question been raised, a court might have ruled that information gathered using the FISA surveillance and/ or the warrantless search be suppressed, thereby possibly jeopardizing Ames' prosecution. To date, this issue remains a matter of concern to the FBI and OIPR. OIPR officials indicated that while such a loss had not occurred because Ames had pleaded guilty, the fear of such a loss, nonetheless, was real. ...
Stemming, in part, from concerns raised over the timing and extent of coordination on the Aldrich Ames case, the Attorney General in July 1995 established policies and procedures for coordinating FBI foreign counterintelligence investigations with the Criminal Division. 19 One purpose of the 1995 procedures was to ensure that DOJ's criminal and counterintelligence functions were properly coordinated. However, according to Criminal Division officials and conclusions by the Attorney General's Review Team, rather then ensuring proper coordination, problems arose soon after the Attorney General's 1995 procedures were promulgated. As discussed, those problems stemmed from the FBI's and OIPR's concerns about the possible consequences that could damage an investigation or prosecution should a court make an adverse ruling on the primary purpose issue.
In January 2000, the Attorney General promulgated coordination procedures, which were in addition to the 1995 procedures. 20 These procedures were promulgated to address problems identified by the Attorney General's Review Team during its review of the FBI's investigation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Criminal Division officials believed that the 2000 procedures had helped to improve coordination, especially for certain types of foreign counterintelligence investigations.
According to DOJ officials, following the conviction of Aldrich Ames, OIPR believed that the close relationship between the FBI and the Criminal Division had been near to crossing the line between intelligence and criminal investigations, thereby risking a decision against the government if a court had applied the primary purpose test. To address the concerns raised, in part, by the FBI's contacts with the Criminal Division in the Ames case, the Attorney General promulgated coordination procedures on July 19, 1995.
^19 Attorney General memorandum dated July 19, 1995, 'Procedures for Contacts Between the FBI and the Criminal Division Concerning Foreign Intelligence and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations.'
^20 Memorandum for the Attorney General, dated January 18, 2000, 'To Recommend that the Attorney General Authorize Certain Measures Regarding Intelligence Matters in Response to the Interim Recommendations Provided by Special Litigation Counsel Randy Bellows.'
http://www.fas.org/irp/gao/gao-01-780.html
You didn't, I inserted that. IIRC, your phrase was "just a rule change" or similar.
I believe that whether the Dems like it or not, a simple majority vote can legally drop filibusters on judicial nominees.
I agree.
Preventing legislative filibusters is an entirely different matter. I believe this is where the debate on the required supermajority comes into play, and the existing rules of the Senate would apply.
The rules apply both, to legislation and nominations - and to treaties too. But the treaties rule is set up in a way that renders the cloture rule moot. The nominations rule could be similarly adjusted, leaving the cloture rule as it is, for legislative matters.
I that that once one looks at and understands the principles behind those three rules, the adjustment that I advocate makes the most sense. Just the same, it's a tough leap in practice because it forever kills the use of cloture to stifle voting on a nominee. I think it's a better fix that a Parliamentary Ruling from the Chair on a Point of Order.
Very interesting...I didn't know that about McCain and Feingold...I wasn't watching the Senate back then, I think...
BTW..don't you think it is kind of like the "Road" movies with McCain?
McCain/Feingold
McCain/Clinton
McCain/Lieberman
McCain/Graham
sheesh!!
Thanks for your insight.
Oh...I didn't know that...that is too bad he is a good writer...and could get close to Mark Steyn...but whenever he gets anywhere near a lib....
he just goes totally squishy. I guess that is what McCain likes about him....
LOL....David Gregory IS a hemorrhoid on Bush's butt and Scott McClellans!!
Okay....you are right...but, since he is a twit, he doesn't get credit....LOL
I thought the president's defense of wiretapping terrorists on FTN today was very good. Very forceful. He echoed a lot of the points made here in FR.
When I was at the store I tried to replay the interview in my head...because I had made the mistake that it was McCain instead of George Bush...
and I remembered also...that they were saying that Bush is losing all of the independents...and that the dems will try to grab them up...
Is THAT a correct recollection??
DAng...look at the difference in the 2000 election..between McCain and the rest!!
That whole ruling by the FEC is crapola.
LOL! a webcam wedding?
LOL!
SCHIEFFER: Let's talk a little bit about this whole idea of eavesdropping without court orders. You said very strongly, in the strongest language I've heard you use, yesterday that you believe it is not only legal, you believe it is absolutely necessary in the war on terrorism. The question I have, Mr. President, is do you believe that there is anything that a president cannot do if he considers it necessary in an emergency like this?Pres. BUSH: That's a--that's a great question. You know, one of the--yeah, I don't think a president can tor--get--order torture, for example. I don't think a president can order the assassination of a leader of another country with which we're not at war. Yes, there are clear red lines, and it--you just asked a very interesting constitutional question: the extent to which a president during war can exercise authorities in order to protect the American people, and that's really what the debate is about. I made the decision to listen to phone calls of al-Qaeda, or suspected al-Qaeda, from outside the country coming in, or inside the country going out, because the people, our operators, told me that this is--one of the best ways to protect the American people.
It is important that this program go on. I understand the debate, and I understand the need to make sure people discuss and debate whether or not I have got the authority to do it. But as I told the American people--and I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this--if somebody is talking to al-Qaeda inside the United States, we need to know why, and that's what this program is aimed to do.
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, Mr. President, because I just have never quite understood this, and maybe you could clear this up. As I understand the law, you have the right to wiretap or eavesdrop on anyone and then have three days to tell the court about it. How does that slow you down?
Pres. BUSH: I asked that very same question to the people designing the program. I said, `How come we can't use the procedures which you just described?' And they said, `It won't work. It doesn't fit in with what Mike Hayden described as "hot pursuit."' I have looked at this program from all angles, and my dilemma and my problem is I can't explain to you how it works in order to justify your question without telling the enemy what we are doing. And this debate is an interesting debate. I'm troubled by it only because the enemy listens, and they see what we are doing--and these are smart people, and they will adjust. And one of the interesting questions, Bob, about this whole debate is whether or not people think we are at war or people think this is kind of an isolated group of people that may or may not hit us, and I am--perhaps because I was a sitting president when 9/11 occurred. Perhaps because I remember my words going to Congress, just saying, `I'm not going to ever forget what took place,' and I will use all the power and my authority within the Constitution to protect the American people, but I view this situation we're in as war, and therefore I must protect the American people with the tools available to me.
Oh definitely. Unless, of course, explaining WHY he got credit and what for would make him squirm.... ?
Just as I sat down a little while ago...the Fox news ditz was interviewing Rep. Dingell and Rep. Burton...
They were going to discuss the SOTU address and what President Bush would say about the economy...
Dingell started out, of course...blaming Bush for the car companies having to lay off thousands...
But, then....that DITZ says "But with the high cost of gas..people are HAVING to sell the cars!!!...They can't afford gas for them anymore"....she sounded SO distressed...
and I about barfed!!!
Then, Burton brought up ANWR and offshore drilling...but, Dingell said NO>..we need electric cars...and nuke energy.
Well...we do need nuke energy...but the dems will NOT give, when it comes to drilling ANYWHERE...
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.