Thursday, March 09, 2006

WaPo: Assess The "Legality" Of Warrantless Surveillance

Regarding the ongoing debate over President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, the Washington Post writes today this editorial:

"Two key inquiries ought to guide any new legislation: how FISA is working and what precisely the administration is doing outside of its strictures. The administration has said that the surveillance law is too cumbersome for certain essential national security surveillance. If this is true, the law needs to be updated. But Congress cannot reasonably authorize or limit the NSA's program without knowing what sort of surveillance it encompasses and how it works. ... These questions may sound esoteric, but they are essential to assessing the legality of what the administration has done and how and whether the law should be updated. Much of this inquiry cannot be conducted in public. But it can and must happen -- and briefing members fully is the place to start."

I agree with the above, but the Post errs when it writes: "It would be tragic and dangerous if it became a political football now -- either as a campaign issue for President Bush or a club with which Democrats can pound him."

While bipartisanship would be a wonderful thing in Washington -- too rare during the Bush years -- Congress should not overlook the obvious. President Bush authorized illegal warrantless surveillance for more than four years, and that's activity unbecoming of a president.

The White House wants it both ways -- it wants people to accept its claim that warrantless surveillance as legal, and to pass legislation to make it legal. That may sound illogical, but neither the White House nor Congressional Republicans seem to care. The White House supports legislation from Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), who said, "We don’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it’s constitutional or not constitutional."

Democrats should pound the president with this issue. But so should any American who respects the idea that the president must follow the law.

29 Comments:

Anonymous Lana Abrams said...

Unwarranted survillance is illegal period. Who does this president think he is? In America, when a potential crime is committed, the law does not change to
accommodate the accused. This administration has a record of secret and unwarranted acts all defended by the same tired excuse: if we do not do this, the terrorists will win. Our weak Congress is insulting the American public by not fully investigating this potentially dangerous program.

12:35 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

The Democrat to most vocally stand up on this issue is Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. He said on Feb. 7:

This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law. Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program.

How is that worthy of applause? Since when do we celebrate our commander in chief for violating our most basic freedoms, and misleading the American people in the process? When did we start to stand up and cheer for breaking the law? In that moment at the State of the Union, I felt ashamed.

Congress has lost its way if we don’t hold this President accountable for his actions.

3:49 PM  
Anonymous radio4progressives said...

I've been asking this question for weeks...

and i wish people would reference the term Domestic Spying when discussing "warrantless taps" or "warrantless surveilance"..

"warrantless" diminishes the significance that go to the heart of what is at issue.

oh, the Bushie's Orwellian term for this is "terrorist surveilance" ..

NOT!

3:51 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"The Democrat to most vocally stand up on this issue is Russ Feingold of Wisconsin."


Rob, I'm not sure that Russ Feingold should be cited as some sort of constitutional scholar or expert upon all things legal and illegal.

Remember that he, together with John McCain, came up with the "campaign finance reform" that prohibits issue ads funded by outside groups within 60 days of a general election, a statute which certainly appears to infringe upon our rights to free political speech.

This puts "we the people" at a distinct disadvantage, especially considering that no such restrictions can be imposed upon newspaper editorial boards. They continue to be permitted to support anyone they wish, whenever they wish. Which is as it should be. It should be so for all of us as well.

In a way I sympathize with you for the way you are feeling about this, but at the same time, I believe that it's something that is self-inflicted. You are buying into the faulty premise that the NSA program is illegal. If I believed that, I'd be feeling pretty much the same way you do. But I don't believe that.

5:22 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

radio4progressives said...
"I've been asking this question for weeks...

and i wish people would reference the term Domestic Spying when discussing "warrantless taps" or "warrantless surveilance".."


R4P, you cannot accurately call something "domestic" if either the sending or receiving end of the communication is outside the United States. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

5:29 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, if the administration had stuck to its "inherent authority" argument, I think you could continue to say that the program was legal.

But the administration, as David points out, supports legislation to legalize the program. By default, that means the program was not previously legal.

I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand. The administration tipped its hand by supporting DeWine. And DeWine's comment on wanting to move past whether this is constitutional just further cements in my mind how illegal the program was.

5:33 PM  
Blogger thepoetryman said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:41 PM  
Blogger thepoetryman said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:42 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

What needs to be looked at is the scope of the NSA program.
Is anyone going to investigate all the evidences the NSA program went well beyond limitations on only foreign terrorists?
Would somebody please hammer home the core issues here.
This is our constitutional privacies and protections from unlawful persecution and search/seizures at stake.
Throw those away; we might as well roll up the constitution into the toilet paper dispenser.
What bothers me is we have these utter ignoramuses who are so confident the spying only involved foreign surveillance on terrorist, with absolutely no evidence to back up such a claim, absolutely none, but the propaganda of a presidential administration with perhaps the lowest approval, trust and competence ratings in U.S. history.

9:56 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

"R4P, you cannot accurately call something "domestic" if either the sending or receiving end of the communication is outside the United States. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?"

In light of the evidences suggesting the NSA program may have involved unchecked surveillance on tens of thousands of Americans each month not connected in any way to terrorism, just don't ask for any OBJECTIVE support for such a claim.

But then if one were to suggest to the Bush apologist: Well, we better then investigate the NSA program to ensure there were no abuses or potential for future abuses for political gain etc., they will respond, "Dah. If we disclose any aspect of the program, the terrorists will know what we are up to."

Clearly, these ignoramuses would rather live their lives in fear. They are not concerned about whether they or a loved one might one day get caught up in a Soviet-style government surveillance sweep.

When that happens, the prosecution will remind them how vigorously they fought against holding the Bush Administration accountable for its NSA spying program, how they blindly entrusted the president with unlimited, unchecked powers in the name of fighting terrorism.
It will be overlooked that they had merely communicated with an Al Qaeda operative in India posing as a Dell customer service rep, or they had merely attended a community rally in opposition to a president's initiative to turn over control of the EPA to corporations, whatever.

11:05 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Trinity, if the administration had stuck to its "inherent authority" argument, I think you could continue to say that the program was legal.

But the administration, as David points out, supports legislation to legalize the program. By default, that means the program was not previously legal."


Not really, rob, since the FISA court has already ruled that they would not and could not interfere with the President's inherent power to take those measures necessary to protect this nation in a time of war.

I think what the administration is saying when they give the go-ahead for Congress to adapt the FISA to accomodate this specific NSA surveillance program, is that they would be agreeable to, and even welcome, Congress' support and added weight, so as to reassure those who feel conflicted on the issue.

Clinton's Justice Department did the same thing, actually. They agreed to go along with the idea of Congress amending the FISA law to specifically include "physical" searches, but did so while at the same time stipulating in no uncertain terms that they rejected the notion that said law would result in their relinquishing to Congress any of the inherent Constitutional power of the President.

As you are probably aware, in the Steel Seizure Case, Justice Robert Jackson classified cases involving the range of Presidential authority. He broke them up into
three broad categories:
(1) Cases in which the President acts pursuant to a grant of power from Congress
(2) Cases in which the President acts on his own, neither authorized by Congress nor prohibited from acting by Congress and
(3) Cases in which the President acts in violation of a Congressionally-enacted prohibition.

Now, since it's been found that the NSA program cannot be effectively implemented under the current FISA law, it would appear that the President's authority in approving the program may very well fall into this third catagory, which admittedly, would be using his inherent power, but only at its "lowest ebb".

As I've pointed out before, this is very much a question of the different branches of government fighting over turf. FISA was a post-Watergate attempt on the part of Congress to increase their own power of authority at the expense of the Executive Branch of Government, a simple power grab they undertook because of past abuses.

Finally, with regard to the FISA itself, it has never really been determined by the SCOTUS that it is even Constitutional in the first place, and lower court rulings have consistently acknowledged the inherent authority of the Executive Branch in these matters.

12:28 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity, I think your entire argument comes from Bryan Cunningham, who is hardly a non-biased source since he was Bush's security advisor from 2002 to 2004 when the illegal spying occurred.
(Under Clinton, he was relatively an underling, an assistant general counsel).
I think Cunningham does not match up to the several constitutional scholars, the Congressional Review Office, the American Bar Association and many other authoritative sources that have all weighed in on this issue.
I would be interested to see your evidence that the FISA court has ruled it does not have jurisdiction over the president. Who told you that, Rush Limbaugh?

9:42 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"I would be interested to see your evidence that the FISA court has ruled it does not have jurisdiction over the president. Who told you that, Rush Limbaugh?"


No, actually I'm relying on this quote taken directly from Sealed Case No. 02-001 of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, argued in September of '02.

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

12:24 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

"FISA was a post-Watergate attempt on the part of Congress to increase their own power of authority at the expense of the Executive Branch of Government, a simple power grab they undertook because of past abuses."
Power grab?

So Trinity, why don't you tell us precisely what Congress should have done under the circumstances? There was a national outcry at the time for a new law to prevent Nixonian spying abuses from ever surfacing again.
Yeah, right, maybe Congress should have instead allowed the Executive Branch to rewrite to write its own national anti-spying law.
That way the executive branch would be able to have its very own check unto itself.
Sorry, Trinity, a Democracy does not work that way.

Maybe Congress should have done nothing, sat on its hands, to hell with the desires of its constituents justifiably outraged at Nixon.
After all, there would always be anti-Democratic, advocates of dictatorships who will argue that Congress should never have a check and balance on the president.

2:45 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity,
The bipartisan Congressional Research Service has researched that decision you quote out of context, and the entire court docket history on the FISA court's role and domestic and foreign surveillance in a Jan. 5 report.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf
Here is the umbrella finding: It found that no court has, as of yet, addressed the legality or constitutionality of the conduct that the Bush administration reportedly is engaging in, and that the Bush administration's legal justification for the program "conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments."

3:07 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"So Trinity, why don't you tell us precisely what Congress should have done under the circumstances? There was a national outcry at the time for a new law to prevent Nixonian spying abuses from ever surfacing again."


I understand that, twot. And I'm not saying Congress should not have done anything to address the abuses that had occurred under the Nixon Administration.

I'm simply explaining that what they did to correct the situation was a part of the constant ebb and flow of our system of government. If ebb and flow doesn't work for you, picture a pendulum swinging back and forth. The different branches are very possessive of their Constitutional powers, and rightfully so.

You might say that Bush is simply reclaiming some of the Executive authority that Congress had borrowed or curtailed.

Presidents Carter and Clinton both agreed that no matter what laws Congress may pass, they, as presidents, always retained their inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance when national security was at stake.

They talked a good talk, but never really put it to the test. President Bush, however, felt it was necessary to exercise that inherent authority in order to be able to monitor intercepts going to or coming from suspected terrorists. The surveillance is NOT domestic spying, as it has been called by some, and the intercepts are conducted from outside this country.

4:07 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Here is the umbrella finding: It found that no court has, as of yet, addressed the legality or constitutionality of the conduct that the Bush administration reportedly is engaging in..."


Well, for that matter, twot, the SCOTUS has never yet ruled on the constitutionality of the FISA itself, either, so I would suggest that's the first order of business.

"...and that the Bush administration's legal justification for the program "conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments."

Well, it also said this:

"As this discussion suggests, while the congressional intent to cabin the President's exercise of any inherent constitutional authority to engage in foreign intelligence electronic surveillance may be clear from the exclusivity provision in FISA and from the legislative history of the measure, some support may be drawn from the Court of Review's decision in In re Sealed Case for the position that the President continues to have the power to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence outside the FISA framework. Whether such authority may exist only as to those areas which were not addressed by FISA in its definition of "electronic surveillance" or is of broader sweep appears to be a matter with respect to which there are differing views."

And this:

"The Court of Review has decided only one published case, which is cited by the Administration above. The case was not appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Court of Review is a court of appeals and is the highest court with express authority over FISA to address the issue, its reference to inherent constitutional authority for the President to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance might be interpreted to carry considerable weight."

So, there you go. You say potato, and I say patahto. :P

5:16 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

So Trinity. You seem to finally agree by your own most recent admissions that it is not certain whether Bush broke the FISA and NSA laws.

THEREFORE, IT IS MANDATORY THAT BUSH, LIKE WOULD ANY U.S. CITIZEN, BE INDICTED AND THEN TRIED FOR COMMITTING A POSSIBLE CRIMINAL ACT.
THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR.

Have you forgotten the well-reported story not long ago about the congressman who had attempted the pass a law a few years ago that would have allowed the Bush Administration to bypass FISA for warrantless spying.
The Bush Administration soundly rejected that proposal as unconstitutional.
Bush's record shows he doesn't care that he is a hypocrite, Here, he engaged in window dressing under the belief he never would get caught.
* I stand by the umbrella argument of the CRO.
* The info about Carter and Clinton is historically inaccurate, debunked RNC spin.
* As for my researched opinion, the wording of the FISA law is clear.
I was evidently right earlier that your Bushie arguments derive from Cunningham, Bush's own senior security advisor who clearly has his own self-interests at stake (likely to avoid facing prosecution along with his former boss).

7:35 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"So Trinity. You seem to finally agree by your own most recent admissions that it is not certain whether Bush broke the FISA and NSA laws."


That's your own interpretation of what I have said, twot. All I am saying in actuality is that just as you seem to truly believe that what the Bush Administration has done is illegal, so too, do I believe that what he has done is legal. Or at least, it appears to be Constitutionally sound, which would then seem to suggest that the FISA itself is unconstitutional, a possibility which the CRS report refers to here:

"...If Congress meant for FISA to occupy the entire field of electronic surveillance of the type that is being conducted pursuant to the President's executive order, then the operation may fall under the third tier of Justice Jackson's formula, in which the President's "power is at its lowest ebb" and a court could sustain it only by "disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject." In other words, if FISA, together with Title III, were found to occupy the field, then for a court to sustain the President's authorization of electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence informatioin outside the FISA framework, FISA would have to be considered an unconstitutional encroachment on inherent presidential authority. If, on the other hand, FISA leaves room for the NSA surveillance outside its strictures, then the claimed power might fall into the first or second categories, as either condoned by Congress (expressly or implicitly), or simply left untouched."

And just as an aside, twot, why are you insisting that I should concede to you any of the certainty that I feel, when you are loathe to make the very same concession to me? You define the liberal stereotype perfectly when you act like that. One standard for me, and another completely different (always lower) standard for yourself.

From day one on this blog, the NSA surveillance program has been precipitiously labeled by David and JABBS posters as "illegal". You and others like you would never dream to give this president the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that there is a very real and valid debate going on with regard to this NSA program. You prefer to bash him and immediately accuse him of a crime.

My side believes that he is acting in good faith to protect this country, and that he has the Constitutional authority, not to mention the moral obligation, to do just that.

THEREFORE, IT IS MANDATORY THAT BUSH, LIKE WOULD ANY U.S. CITIZEN, BE INDICTED AND THEN TRIED FOR COMMITTING A POSSIBLE CRIMINAL ACT.

No, twot. It is NOT mandatory. What it is, is political posturing at its very worst. And I'd remind you that if you had committed perjury before a Grand Jury the way Clinton did, your butt would be sitting in a prison cell right now. Instead, Clinton is over in the UAE giving multiple speeches at $300,000 a pop and working as an unregistered lobbyist for DP World. Please, give me a break.

1:35 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Sorry, Mr. Mark, for addressing you by the wrong name. I meant, "David" in the above post. (embarrassed)

Not that anyone seems to have noticed, or even read it. lol

1:39 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Oooops. Double boo boo. The blogger didn't change, and I put that post on the wrong topic. It should have gone HERE:

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2006/03/congressional-republicans-put-party.html#comments

Congressional Republicans Put Party Before Country, Cut Deal With White House For Legislation To Legalize Warrantless Surveillance Program

1:42 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity.
When Clinton lied to a Grand Jury about a sexual escapade, the Republicans squawked, "We must be worried about a precedent. We must fight for truth, justice and the American way."
When Bush lies and breaks the law, the Republicans squawk the moment anyone raises a flag, "it's all about political posturing."

The conservatives argue out of agenda and convenience, not context or truth. In the end, they come out looking as hypocrites.
If you want to go down the route of the Clinton comparison, a route conservatives like to travel, nonwithstanding the fact Clinton enjoyed a successful presidency while Bush's is an utter failure,
Clinton's lie to a grand jury involved a matter of PRIVATE concern. It had no business leading to impeachment hearings.
Bush on the other hand lied to the American people about matters of PUBLIC concern: not limited to the spying program, the extent of the Executive branch's knowledge of Sadaam's WMD capabilities in the run-up to the war (all documented), the status of the Iraq War, Katrina, etc. that do warrant impeachment hearings.
I believe Bush should be tried for incompetence: or forwarding a serious of incompetent policies that have severely damaged America.

It is not "political posturing."
Spying on American citizens is a serious felony, especially when the president does it. And the evidence does not indicate the program was limited to terrorism.
At the very least, the Republicans have no business sweeping the entire matter under the rug.

You ignore inconvenient evidences such as the Bush Administration itself finding the spying without a FISA warrant unconstitutional.
(Refer to hypocritical conservative argument above And like arguing with a member of a hypocritical party, I find myself running into circles).

10:03 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Clinton's lie to a grand jury involved a matter of PRIVATE concern. It had no business leading to impeachment hearings."


You never cease to amaze me. Of course it did. Clinton was being sued civally in an Arkansas Federal District Court for sexual harassment when he was Governor of Arkansas. By deliberately lying in court and obstructing justice in that case, Clinton brought his troubles upon himself.

And not only did HE commit a felony, he sent his wife out to lie for him, as well as most of his cabinet and friends, and in so doing caused a major distraction that lasted way too long. That time would have been better used taking care of terrorist threats that were building up in the wake of the first WTC bombing and all of the other attacks on our military and interests overseas that occurred during Clinton's presidency.

All this while Clinton was busy carrying on like a horny teenager in the Oval Office. Please. He could not have been more irresponsible if he tried. In 1998, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other terrorists issued a Fatwa against the United States. Threats to our national security, like all other dangers our country faces, didn't begin when GWB became president. They were out there festering while Clinton dithered away, and unfortunately, THAT is the legacy that Clinton has left us. If that makes you proud, then what can I say? Be proud.

12:46 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Spying on American citizens is a serious felony, especially when the president does it. And the evidence does not indicate the program was limited to terrorism."


Bla Bla Bla! If there is real evidence out there, let's see the abuses. The NYT can publish the story. Otherwise, it's just a lot of empty rhetoric and POLITICAL POSTURING, like everything else you guys have been engaged in for the last five years.

Again, I'm struck by the unreasonable hatred and complete lack of empathy that liberals have for this President. It's evident that he takes his responsibility to protect this nation from further attack very seriously, and it undoubtedly is weighing very heavily upon him. I'm ever grateful that it is he, and not Gore or Kerry in the White House.

1:04 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Wasn't there an example in one of the comments fields about a case in Oregon, with alleged documentation?

Wouldn't that qualify as "real evidemce," Trinity?

2:11 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Right. And I don't feel a need to review all the ADDITIONAL hard evidences here that Trinity blindly sees as empty political rhetoric.
The only thing that is empty is Trinity's failure to look at the available research.
And I think a public correction from Trinity here is warranted:
The record shows was the impeachment hearings and the special prosecutor BROUGHT BY THE REPUBLICANS that absorbed Clinton's second term and congress during the period, and prevented any stronger focus on more serious issues such as Bin Laden and terrorism.
So now Republicans argue: The American people don't want "Democrats" to distract Congress with hearings critical of Bush.
I ask why not? What could be a better use of some of their time.
We could not have a more lame duck, ineffective Congress and president as a result of this leadership.
This president and Congress have not produced anything that the American people want. Nothing.
The programs they have tried to push such as medical savings accounts have been shown to be of no interest to most Americans.
They have however been engaged in cutting funding for programs in healthcare, education, small business funding, Medicaid that most Americans do want and need.
The only thing preventing an ever dwindling number of Americans from running these Republicans out of town is a Rovian effort to prevent them from knowing of the truth.
Read the renowned book: "What's the Matter with Kansas" for proof.

2:52 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"Wasn't there an example in one of the comments fields about a case in Oregon, with alleged documentation?

Wouldn't that qualify as "real evidemce," Trinity?"


No exactly, cutiepie, since as you yourself stated, at this point, these are mere allegations. Nothing whatsoever has been proven yet. Nobody has said what type of "documentation" they have to support charges of anything illegal having been done.


And if I remember correctly, they said that there were still too many unknowns at this time, including whether or not the government had a secret warrant from FISA to allow them to do the surveillance.

So, no, in response to your question, I wouldn't say any of that qualifies as real evidence at this time.

Furthermore, it's been the case that many of these Islamist "charitable" institutions have been found to have strong ties to terrorist organizations, so if the government feels that they have to monitor them in order to cut off funding for terrorists, I believe that would fall under the category of what would be allowed under the Patriot Act.

Besides, as usual, some people are trying to blur the line concerning who it is who is being listened in on. This Oregon case is definitely NOT an example of domestic spying. These phone calls that are in question were calls between the director of the charity at the parent company in SAUDI ARABIA, and two of the charity's attorneys in Washington, DC.

5:20 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"The record shows was the impeachment hearings and the special prosecutor BROUGHT BY THE REPUBLICANS that absorbed Clinton's second term and congress during the period, and prevented any stronger focus on more serious issues such as Bin Laden and terrorism."


Nice try, twot, but had the Clinton Administration not lied, obfuscated and stonewalled their way through that entire investigation, it wouldn't have taken nearly as long.

Furthermore, Ken Starr was chosen to investigate Whitewater by Clinton's own AG and a three judge panel. Over a dozen indictments came out of Whitewater too, btw. Everyone around the Clintons, but, of course, not the Clintons themselves. As we all know, they were squeaky clean. :rolleyes:

After that, Janet Reno appointed Starr to also investigate possible perjury and obstruction of justice by President Clinton in the Paula Jones civil case, which as I already pointed out, only happened because Clinton perjured himself.

I might also remind you that Republicans considered the Independent Counsel itself to be unconstitutional, and voted not to reauthorize it in 1992. It was Clinton himself who restored the law in 1994. Ironic, I know.

6:08 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

You got me there. It was Janet Reno and a three-panel judges (two of which staunch Republicans) appointed the Special Counsel.
But it was Starr's office with the cheering on of the Republicans in 1995 who made the decision to expand the investigation into frivolous,Clinton personal matters, which do no infringe upon our liberties or system of government. It was Republicans that initiated and dragged out the impeachment contest.
There is not a lot of evidence to back this statement "the Clinton Administration not lied, obfuscated and stonewalled their way through that entire investigation, it wouldn't have taken nearly as long."
In fact Starr ultimately found no evidence that Clinton tampered with witnesses.
THE OVERRIDING ISSUE. YOU MAKE SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF WHITEWATER. THEN, UNLESS YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE, YOU SHOULD BE EQUALLY BEHIND AN INVESTIGATION INTO BUSH WARRANTLESS SPYING, WHICH YOU APPEAR TO ADMIT YET AGAIN IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER HE ENGAGED IN SUCH ACTIVITY.
You are so quick to discount evidences of NSA domestic spying in Oregon, yet so quick to accept without any evidence the President's affirmations the program involved only foreign terrorists despite the fact that almost nothing he has said these last six years turned out the way he represented.
Most of America sees him for what he is: walking incompetence and harmful to our country. We still have those minority blind sheep willing to be led to the slaughter.

7:20 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares