"At the Judiciary Committee hearings Monday, Sen. Leahy announced: "Mr. Attorney General, in America, our America, nobody is above the law, not even the president of the United States." Got it. But here's the bottom line on the surveillance program. It was going to work, and help lessen the chance of another atrocity in our America, only if it stayed secret. The odds of it staying secret would diminish as its existence spread through the Congress and judicial system. Now it is public, and its utility is about zero. What's left is the legal issue of whether it violated FISA. We can only look forward to the answer."
Ummm YES there is.
The Democrats, of course, even now all show their own little Criminal President Meters pegged at "GUILTY!", which, if they can just get the House in '06, they absolutely intend to use to impeach the President. There is just no mystery as to how that would unfold.
To them, it's analogous to setting up for a spike in a volleyball game.
The President has a genuine, honest, well-considered position based on careful study of the law. In horse-blindered fashion, the Dems imagine they see a future opportunity if they can just align their minions to ramrod their broken ideas and activities through the electorate and Congress.
If FISA legally precludes the President from doing what he's done, it would but show the FISA law to be potentially disastrously outdated and needing change. That is the only reasonable fact to be derived from a Constitutional-legal determination that the President might have violated such a law. But obviously, the Dems have zero appreciation of such, and would run roughshod over the tremendous importance of all of that just to catch their fingernails on the slim possibilities that they could claw their way back into power.
Democrats and RINOs that support such activity all deserve the "T", and we dare not sit idly by so as to allow them to be elected.
HF
... But here's the bottom line on the surveillance program. It was going to work, and help lessen the chance of another atrocity in our America, only if it stayed secret.I call BS on that. Here's why. The FISA program already provides for secret surveillance, sometimes without warrants and sometimes with secret warrants. But still, "secret" except for the number of appliations filed and granted each year.
It also stands to reason that a person who endeavors to hide his communications will not choose a communications method based on some legal nuance. Hidden communications are undertaken with the object of -NOT- being caught, period, and in that thought process, legal line drawing about "evidentiary hurdles" just doesn't have a major role.