Which Rockefeller are you talking about? There have been quite a few of them in public life. Here is Jay, the deceased:
Posted on 11/06/2026 6:46:02 AM PST by Red Badger
A soft-spoken Democrat with liberal views, Rockefeller served five six-year terms representing West Virginia in the Senate and became a prominent critic of the Iraq War.
WASHINGTON — John D. “Jay” Rockefeller IV, the progeny of one of America’s most famous and wealthiest families who during three decades in the Senate sought expanded healthcare for the poor and excoriated President George W. Bush’s handling of the Iraq War, died Friday at his home in Washington, The Washington Post reported.
He was 89.
His family did not provide a cause, the newspaper added.
Rockefeller, a tall, soft-spoken Democrat with liberal views, was elected in 1984 to the first of his five six-year terms representing West Virginia in the Senate after two terms as governor of the poor coal-mining state.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
I’d think better of him if he went out like Nelson.
True, though I’m sure he would rather have died like Nelson Rockefeller did.
The Rockfellers The Rothschilds and there ilk need to rot in hell. What evil people.
Nelson died at 70 in apparent good health. Jay died at 89. Maybe Nelson would have rather had the extra 18-19 years.
Nelson died at 70 in apparent good health.
He came and went at the same time.
A lot of men wouldn’t mind dying “in the saddle.”
Had severe dementia.
Very good.
Along with George Soros.
**Nelson died at 70 in apparent good health. Jay died at 89. Maybe Nelson would have rather had the extra 18-19 years.**
You’d make a lousy pollster.
**Nelson died at 70 in apparent good health. He came and went at the same time.**
**A lot of men wouldn’t mind dying “in the saddle.”**
You guys are funnier.
So tell me: how many of us old geezers would be willing to give our estates to the young babe who’d give us that?
Bet you can’t find a photo in which Rockefeller is smiling. He is the quinessential grinch.
I think she was a little older than that.
The paterfamilias John D and his son JDjr were moral Christians, and the entire family and its Rockefeller foundation did much for building American institutions, preserving its history (Colonial Williamsburg was one of the family's projects), and for charity—until the third generation (Jay's father, aunts and uncles). It's always the third generation that turns left in every wealthy family.
Jay was fourth-generation; but although he was an old-school Democrat, he was not anti-American and was never enveloped in scandal to my recollection.
Which Rockefeller are you talking about? There have been quite a few of them in public life. Here is Jay, the deceased:
Rockefeller was as dirty as Democrats come, the way he abused the powers of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to weaponize it against Republicans under President George W. Bush.
New York Post (November 7, 2003) - MEMO FEUD FREEZES INTEL PANEL
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON – The Senate Intelligence Committee chairman canceled a hearing yesterday and froze all work in response to the Democrats’ refusal to condemn a staff memo that spells out how to play politics with prewar intelligence.
But Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) dug in his heels and refused to disavow the memo or discipline the Democratic committee staff who wrote it.
The staff memo advised Democrats to string the Republicans along on the investigation into prewar intelligence and then surprise them during next year’s campaign with a call for an independent probe...
Rockefeller called it a “private memo that nobody saw except me and the staff people that wrote it for me.”
For several months, Senate action on President Bush’s judicial nominees has ground to a halt as the Judiciary Committee and its members have been consumed with what has become popularly known as "Memogate." The term refers to reportedly more than 4,000 memoranda to and from Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that outline troubling collusion between liberal special interest groups and Committee Democrats to obstruct the confirmation of many of the President’s judicial nominees.
Investigations have been launched that, thus far, have focused solely on how the memos were obtained by Republican staffers on the Committee and how they were leaked. The Center and others have pushed for a complete and thorough investigation into the memos’ content.
What follows is a detailed and up-to-date timeline of the events surrounding Memogate. Check back often as we will continually update the timeline as new developments occur.
November 14, 2003 — The Wall Street Journal publishes excerpts from staff memos written to Senate Democrats in 2001-2003 outlining strategies to defeat President Bush’s judicial nominees.
November 15, 2003 — The Washington Times publish excerpts from the memos. See Chapter 15 "Judicial Committee Collusion Memos".
November 17, 2003 — Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (Ill.), Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and Patrick Leahy (Vt.) call upon Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle to conduct an official investigation into how the memos were leaked; Capitol Hill police begin confiscating Senate Judiciary Committee computer hard drives in the search for evidence of who leaked the documents.
November 25, 2003 — Referring to how some memos were obtained and "leaked" to the press, at a Capitol Hill press conference, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) states he is "mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my watch." He announces that an official Sergeant-at-Arms investigation is underway and that he has placed an unnamed aide on administrative leave in connection with the leaks.
December 3, 2003 — The Center for Individual Freedom, joined by Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, the Congress of Racial Equality and Project 21, files a complaint with the Virginia State Bar (https://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/conduct_of_elaine_jones.htm) calling for a full investigation of Elaine R. Jones, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., based on the content of a memo stating that she contacted Senator Kennedy’s office and requested that he delay Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on any nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit until after the court decided the pending University of Michigan case on the constitutionality of affirmative action, in which Elaine Jones was a counsel for the Defendant-Intervenors.
February 6, 2004 — Manuel Miranda resigns (https://web.archive.org/web/20040409203337/http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1247670.html) from his position as legal counsel to Majority Leader Bill Frist and files a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee (https://web.archive.org/web/20040221070917/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040206-1602-judiciarymemos.html) stating that other unpublished memos in Sergeant-at-Arms Pickle’s possession contain evidence of "public corruption" by Senators, including "direct influencing of the Senate’s advice and consent role by the promise of campaign funding and election support."
February 10, 2004 — The Center for Individual Freedom joins more than two dozen organizations in asking the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee or their staffs exchanged efforts to obstruct the confirmation of President Bush’s judicial nominees for campaign contributions and support. See link: https://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/hillman_letter.htm
February 10, 2004 — Sergeant-at-Arms Pickle privately briefs members of the Senate Judiciary Committee about the progress of the investigation.
February 12, 2004 — Fox News reports (https://web.archive.org/web/20090605113318/https://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C111261%2C00.html) that Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) allegedly urged Leahy to delay a vote on one Bush judicial nominee because trial lawyers’ groups and the NAACP threatened to cut back on campaign spending for Democratic candidates in North Carolina if the vote occurred as scheduled. See link:
February 12, 2004 — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) files an ethics complaint against Manuel Miranda (https://web.archive.org/web/20040504014426/http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/20040212/letter.php) with the New York Bar alleging that Miranda violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by reading the Democrats’ memos.
February 20, 2004 — Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) calls for an investigation into the content of memos to determine whether Democrats committed any wrongdoing in their efforts to block judicial nominations
February 23, 2004 — In an interview with CNS News (https://web.archive.org/web/20040427232417/http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Archive/200402/POL20040220a.html), Miranda provides additional details about the content of the memos, the investigation and the way in which the memos were obtained. See link:
February 24, 2004 — The Legal Times reports that Elaine R. Jones has retained former Clinton defense attorney David Kendall and former Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder to represent her in her ethics complaint with the Virginia State Bar.
March 1, 2004 — The Center for Individual Freedom calls on the Senate to release (https://web.archive.org/web/20040323093130/http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200403%5CPOL20040302b.html) the full Sergeant-at-Arms report as well as the memos themselves. Senate Democrats ask the White House and Justice Department (https://web.archive.org/web/20040313144742/https://thehill.com/news/030204/memogate.aspx) whether they had seen any of the memos.
March 2, 2004 — An additional former Judiciary Committee staffer with extensive knowledge of computer network security comes forward to confirm Miranda’s description (https://web.archive.org/web/20050311230846/http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040301-115931-9096r.htm) of the way he accessed the memos. The Sergeant-at-Arms delays delivery of his report to Senate Judiciary Committee.
March 3, 2004 — Sergeant-at-Arms Pickle delivers his report to Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Leahy.
March 4, 2004 — The full Senate Judiciary Committee meets to review the Sergeant-at-Arms’ report and decides to release a redacted version to the press and the public (Part 1 (https://web.archive.org/web/20040307111532/http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1085&wit_id=2514) and Part 2 (https://web.archive.org/web/20040307110420/http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1085&wit_id=3088)). The report implicates Miranda and another Senate staffer. Judiciary staff inadvertently release unredacted version to the press.
March 9, 2004 — Judiciary Republicans, led by Senator Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.), accuse Democrat staff of releasing the unredacted report intentionally (https://web.archive.org/web/20050415070922/http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040307-115024-1003r.htm). Sergeant-at-Arms Pickle announces he will start a new investigation (https://web.archive.org/web/20040311123600/http://www.hillnews.com/news/031004/pickle.aspx) into this matter. Democrats worry that the disclosure may make a criminal investigation more difficult.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060418141658/https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102258,00.html
Following is the text of a memo written by a Democrat on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq. The memo was obtained by Fox News.
Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq:
Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)
Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).
Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
Summary
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.
-PJ
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.