Posted on 03/30/2008 7:22:28 AM PDT by kellynla
A senior adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign was pressed on immigration issues in a conference call with bloggers Friday.
John Hawkins, of Rightwingnews.com and Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey inquired about McCain’s support of an immigration enforcement act sponsored by Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler (D.-N.C.) and the influence McCain’s Hispanic Outreach Director Juan Hernandez had on McCain.
The blogger call was intended to promote McCain’s upcoming “Service to America Tour” but the campaign took questions on a broad range of issues.
Hawkins asked McCain adviser Steve Schmidt about allegations McCain was blocking Schuler’s legislation, titled the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act. Earlier this week Shuler claimed progress on moving the bill through the House was “going great until McCain blocked it.”
Shuler, a former NFL player, says McCain did this by asking Republican members of the House not to sign a discharge petition to advance the bill in a series of phone calls.
Schmidt said, “The comments with regard to the phone calls are false and makes you wonder if Heath Shuler had one too many encounters with a line backer in his previous profession and where he came up with that from.”
Schmidt said he did not know if McCain was supportive of Shuler’s bill or not.
With regards to Hernandez, an open-borders advocate whose role in McCain’s campaign outrages conservatives concerned with border enforcement, Schmidt expressed some frustration to the continued questions about Hernandez.
“John McCain’s position on immigration is very clear and this a question that gets asked at townhall appearances everyday in media appearances and has answered the question at least a thousand times before the New Hampshire primary,” Schmidt said.
He explained, “Any person who supports John McCain’s campaigns is a subscriber to John McCain’s views and even if those people have published things or said things in terms of policy that are contrary to John McCain’s policies that does not mean John McCain supports that person’s view. That person is working in a campaign to help express John McCain’s view.”
Schmidt added, “There has been a lot of focus on staff members of campaigns that obscure the big issues.”
All I can say is good luck...
He has said he will treat them humanely and that it is impossible to deport 12 million people.. Translation: He supports amnesty for them, which will destroy this country with a stroke of a pen.
This is the worst election year of my entire life. Ok, 1976 was worse. A little.
The only bright spot is the fighting between the Beast and the obamanation.
But no matter who wins, America loses, big time.
What the hell were people thinking, giving the nomination to senor McCain? It makes me sick to my stomach every time I think about it, so I mostly just focus on how bad Hillary and “Barry” are making each other look. It eases the pain.
I know, the McCain supporters are on an all out campaign to shut people up who refuse to forget just who McCain is.
The GOP is already torn down and most likely will never rise as anything other than "the other democrats".
Oh well, keep talking and keep a thick skin.
Anyway you look at it, we are going to need it.LOL
That kind of post gives FR a bad name.
Oh really? I wasn’t aware Free Republic has a bad name.
We just learn new stuff everyday.
Keep a copy of the video link handy. Nothing beats watching and hearing it straight from the jackass’s mouth.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1080756/john_mccain_secure_our_borders/
Did you read the post??
Yes, that is true. What would you do?
Yep, I agree he was very emotional, it was an angry one, but I hardly think I would say it would give FR a bad name.
Many people are upset this go round. Its okay to vent their outrage, it isn’t like McCain is a conservative.
That said, It is probably farther than what I would go. But that was his opinion.
Probably but I think he’ll show his true colors before Nov.
What would I do about what?
McCain? Just keep the pressure on to convince him that we want illegals deported just like he finally realized that we want the borders secured.
About the illegals?
AFTER BOTH BORDERS ARE SECURED, I would start deporting ALL illegals including the incarcerated(why should American taxpayers pay conservatively $25K annually to incarcerate other countries’ criminals) AND deport all foreign Muslims.
And close mosques.
We didn't allow the Nazis to operate German-American Bunds in America during WWII; why should we allow mosques in America that profess anti-American and anti-religious ideas and killing of nonbelievers!
Ping!
Good morning, Trav. Thanks for hangin’ in there...
>>>>If you want to see the real Juan MxCain they got him on video totally dodging the amnesty issue. What a piece of lying trash!
An even better one:
http://www.youtube.com/4powfreedom
Dolores Apodaca Alfond and John McCain
Text of that video is here:
http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2008/02/01/dolores-apodaca-alfond-and-john-mccain.aspx
McCain is the most vile person that has existed on Earth!
As I always say about Bush. “He’s done a fine job of fighting the offensive side of the WOT.” and leave it at that.
Memorandum for: Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action
From: John F. McCreary
Subject: Possible Violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, by the Select Committee and Possible Ethical Misconduct by Staff Attorneys.
1. Continuing analysis of relevant laws and further review of the events between 8 April and 16 April 1992 connected with the destruction of the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text strongly indicate that the order to destroy all copies of that briefing text on 9 April and the actual destruction of copies of the briefing texts plus the purging of computer files might constitute violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, which imposes criminal penalties for unlawful document destruction. Even absent a finding of criminal misconduct, statements, actions, and failures to act by the senior Staff attorneys following the 9 April briefing might constitute serious breaches of ethical standards of conduct for attorneys, in addition to violations of Senate and Select Committee rules. The potential consequences of these possible misdeeds are such that they should be brought to the attention of all members of the Select Committee, plus all Designees and Staff members who were present at the 9 April briefing.
2. The relevant section of Title 18, U.S.C., states in pertinent part: Section 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795)
3. The facts as the undersigned and others present at the briefing recall them are presented in the attached Memorandum for the Record. A summary of those facts - and others that have been established since that Memorandum was written - follows.
a. On 8 April 1992, the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text was presented to Senior Staff members and Designees for whom copies were available prior to beginning the briefing. Objections to the text by the Designees prompted the Staff Director to order all persons present to leave their copies of the briefing text in Room SRB078. Subsequent events indicated that two copies had been removed without authorization.
b. On 9 April 1992, at the beginning of the meeting of the Select Committee and prior to the scheduled investigators' briefing, Senator McCain produced a copy of the intelligence briefing text, with whose contents he strongly disagreed. He charged that the briefing text had already been leaked to a POW/MIA activist, but was reassured by the Chairman that such was not the case. He replied that he was certain it would be leaked. Whereupon, the Chairman assured Senator McCain that there would be no leaks because all copies would be gathered and destroyed, and he gave orders to that effect. No senior staff member or attorney present cautioned against a possible violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, or of Senate or Select Committee Rules.
c. Following the briefing on 9 April, the Staff Director, Ms. Frances Zwenig, restated to the intelligence investigators the order to destroy the intelligence briefing text and took measures to ensure execution of the destruction order. (See paragraph 3 of the attachment.) During one telephone conversation with the undersigned, she stated that she was "acting under orders."
d. The undersigned also was instructed to delete all computer files, which Mr. Barry Valentine witnessed on 9 April.
e. In a meeting on 15 April 1992, the Staff's Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha, was advised by intelligence investigators of their concerns about the possibility that they had committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing text. Mr. Codinha minimized the significance of the documents and of their destruction. He admonished the investigators for "making a mountain out of a molehill."
f. When investigators repeated their concern that the order to destroy the documents might lead to criminal charges, Mr. Codinha replied "Who's the injured party." He was told, "The 2,494 families of the unaccounted for US Servicemen, among others." Mr. Codinha then said, "Who's gonna tell them. It's classified." At that point the meeting erupted. The undersigned stated that the measure of merit was the law and what's right, not avoidance of getting caught. To which Mr. Codinha made no reply. At no time during the meeting did Mr. Codinha give any indication that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.
g. Investigators, thereupon, repeatedly requested actions by the Committee to clear them of any wrongdoing, such as provision of legal counsel. Mr. Codinha admitted that he was not familiar with the law and promised to look into it. He invited a memorandum from the investigators stating what they wanted. Given Mr. Codinha's statements and reactions to the possibility of criminal liability, the investigators concluded they must request appointment of an independent counsel. A memorandum making such a request and signed by all six intelligence investigators was delivered to Mr. Codinha on 16 April.
h. At 2130 on 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, convened a meeting with the intelligence investigators, who told him personally of their concern that they might have committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing texts at the order of the Staff Director. Senator Kerry stated that he gave the order to destroy the documents, not the Staff Director, and that none of the Senators present at the meeting had objected. He also stated that the issue of document destruction was "moot" because the original briefing text had been deposited with the Office of Senate Security "all along." Both the Staff Director and the Chief Counsel supported this assertion by the Chairman.
i. Senator Kerry's remarks prompted follow-up investigations (See paragraphs 4 through 9 of the attachment) and inquiries that established that a copy of the text was not deposited in the Office of Senate Security until the afternoon of 16 April. The Staff Director has admitted that on the afternoon of 16 April, after receiving a copy of a memorandum from Senator Bob Smith to Senator Kerry in which Senator Smith outlined his concerns about the destruction of documents, she obtained a copy of the intelligence briefing text from the office of Senator McCain and took it to the Office of Senate Security. Office of Senate Security personnel confirmed that the Staff Director gave them an envelope, marked "Eyes Only," to be placed in her personal file. The Staff Director has admitted that the envelope contained the copy of the intelligence briefing text that she obtained from the office of Senator McCain.
3. The facts of the destruction of the intelligence briefing text would seem to fall inside the prescriptions of the Statute, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, so as to justify their referral for investigation to a competent law enforcement authority. The applicability of that Statute was debated in United States v. Poindexter, D.D.C. 1989, 725 F. Supp. 13, in connection with the Iran Contra investigation. The District Court ruled, inter alia, that the National Security Council is a public office within the meaning of the Statute and, thus, that its records and documents fell within the protection of the Statute. In light of that ruling, the Statute would seem to apply to this Senate Select Committee and its Staff. The continued existence of a "bootleg" copy of the intelligence briefing text - i.e., a copy that is not one of those made by the investigators for the purpose of briefing the Select Committee - would seem to be irrelevant to the issues of intent to destroy and willfulness; as well as to the issue of responsibility for the order to destroy all copies of the briefing text, for the attempt to carry out that order, and for the destruction that actually was accomplished in execution of that order.
4. As for the issue of misconduct by Staff attorneys, all member of the Bar swear to uphold the law. That oath may be violated by acts of omission and commission. Even without a violation of the Federal criminal statute, the actions and failures to act by senior Staff attorneys in the sequence of events connected with the destruction of the briefing text might constitute violations
of ethical standards for members of the Bar and of both Senate and Select Committee rules. The statements, actions and failures to act during and after the meeting on 15 April, when the investigators gave notice of their concern about possible criminal liability for document destruction, would seem to reflect disregard for the law and for the rules of the United States Senate.
John F. McCreary
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.