Comments on: The (John) Dean’s December … I mean March… http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/ Just another Pajamasmedia.com weblog Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:36:25 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: vet222 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76523 vet222 Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:42:56 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76523 ----As for him informing Democratic Senators of what was going on, they disagree that they were actually briefed on the key details of the practice.---- No, no, no.. you've got the talking points all wrong, just all wrong. What Rockefeller said was that after years on the Intelligence Committee and as one of the most powerful Senators he didn't have enough background or knowledge of the law to make a judgement. Gosh, I'll be those Intelligence Committee meetings never discussed legal implication of foreign intelligence when he was in the majority!!!!!! Poor little Rocky..... —-As for him informing Democratic Senators of what was going on, they disagree that they were actually briefed on the key details of the practice.—-

No, no, no.. you’ve got the talking points all wrong, just all wrong. What Rockefeller said was that after years on the Intelligence Committee and as one of the most powerful Senators he didn’t have enough background or knowledge of the law to make a judgement. Gosh, I’ll be those Intelligence Committee meetings never discussed legal implication of foreign intelligence when he was in the majority!!!!!! Poor little Rocky…..

]]> By: Kevin Peters http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76522 Kevin Peters Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:00:23 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76522 SJ: Yes, that liberal idiot law proff Sunstein never read the laws you cite so of course he is wrong when he states that the President has the authority in his position as commander in chief. Same thing with the Clinton Asst. A.G. Since the law is so simple as you claim then the Bush arrest and prosecution should be a slam dunk. You read the law, Bush is not claiming he did not do it, so the trial should only take a week or two. Funny, it's not happening. How can that be. Read the law. He broke it. Or maybe their are more complex issues that lead Sunstein, a liberal Dem and no fan of Bush, to think otherwise. And Sen. Rockefeller was told that A.Q calls to Americans were being tapped, sometimes without warrants. There are no arguments over the facts. Bush admits that these action you claim are black and white illegal happened. If it was so simple Bush would be in jail or at least be found guilty of breaking the law. And if it was that simple the Dems would have joined Feingold in his call for censure. And if it was that simple, why didn't Feingold call for impeachment? After all, you have given us all the facts we need, Bush admits he did it, conviction, slam dunk. Why isn't it happening? Maybe it's more complex then you think. SJ:
Yes, that liberal idiot law proff Sunstein never read the laws you cite so of course he is wrong when he states that the President has the authority in his position as commander in chief. Same thing with the Clinton Asst. A.G. Since the law is so simple as you claim then the Bush arrest and prosecution should be a slam dunk. You read the law, Bush is not claiming he did not do it, so the trial should only take a week or two. Funny, it’s not happening. How can that be. Read the law. He broke it. Or maybe their are more complex issues that lead Sunstein, a liberal Dem and no fan of Bush, to think otherwise. And Sen. Rockefeller was told that A.Q calls to Americans were being tapped, sometimes without warrants. There are no arguments over the facts. Bush admits that these action you claim are black and white illegal happened. If it was so simple Bush would be in jail or at least be found guilty of breaking the law. And if it was that simple the Dems would have joined Feingold in his call for censure. And if it was that simple, why didn’t Feingold call for impeachment? After all, you have given us all the facts we need, Bush admits he did it, conviction, slam dunk. Why isn’t it happening? Maybe it’s more complex then you think.

]]> By: Shochu John http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76521 Shochu John Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:59:35 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76521 Were the warrantless surveilance program exclusively concerned with international communications, we would not be having this conversation. The controversy is because the surveilance is happening on calls in which at least one party is in the United States. Ergo, domestic. Were the warrantless surveilance program exclusively concerned with international communications, we would not be having this conversation. The controversy is because the surveilance is happening on calls in which at least one party is in the United States. Ergo, domestic.

]]> By: nittypig http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76520 nittypig Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:59:13 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76520 "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted." Notice the word "DOMESTIC" in there? The warrantless surveillance program is exclusively concerned with international communications. “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.”

Notice the word “DOMESTIC” in there? The warrantless surveillance program is exclusively concerned with international communications.

]]> By: klrfz1 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76519 klrfz1 Mon, 03 Apr 2006 07:15:17 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76519 Kevin Peters You see what you're up against when you try to be reasonable with a troll. Kevin Peters

You see what you’re up against when you try to be reasonable with a troll.

]]> By: Shochu John http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76518 Shochu John Mon, 03 Apr 2006 05:25:05 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76518 Well, Kevin, you could appeal to authority on the issue, or you could just look at the statute yourself. The FISA act of 1978 allows surveilance without a warrant if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party" 50 U.S.C. ß 1802(a) or altertaively "to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress." 50 U.S.C. ß 1811. Either one of these apply? Nope. And the FISA act, "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted." 18 U.S.C. ß 2518(f). So, guess what, that means the wiretaps were illegal. Feel free to read the statutes in full yourself so you may be confident I am omitting nothing relevant. As for him informing Democratic Senators of what was going on, they disagree that they were actually briefed on the key details of the practice. Of course, if they were and did nothing, then they also need to be investigated as to their part in the violation of these laws. klrfz, I have neither the time nor inclination to take part in the feces flinging contest in which you seem determined to engage me. Consider this an open invitation to ignore everything I write from this point forward and I will do you the same courtesy. Well, Kevin, you could appeal to authority on the issue, or you could just look at the statute yourself. The FISA act of 1978 allows surveilance without a warrant if “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party” 50 U.S.C. ß 1802(a) or altertaively “to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.” 50 U.S.C. ß 1811. Either one of these apply? Nope. And the FISA act, “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” 18 U.S.C. ß 2518(f). So, guess what, that means the wiretaps were illegal. Feel free to read the statutes in full yourself so you may be confident I am omitting nothing relevant.

As for him informing Democratic Senators of what was going on, they disagree that they were actually briefed on the key details of the practice. Of course, if they were and did nothing, then they also need to be investigated as to their part in the violation of these laws.

klrfz, I have neither the time nor inclination to take part in the feces flinging contest in which you seem determined to engage me. Consider this an open invitation to ignore everything I write from this point forward and I will do you the same courtesy.

]]> By: vet222 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76517 vet222 Mon, 03 Apr 2006 03:02:21 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76517 unilaterally declare its actions... Congressional leaders were briefed about this program. Good contribution to the discussion though! unilaterally declare its actions…

Congressional leaders were briefed about this program. Good contribution to the discussion though!

]]> By: Kevin Peters http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76516 Kevin Peters Sun, 02 Apr 2006 18:57:38 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76516 Schochu J. Cass Sunstein, regarded by most to be a liberal Law proff, says that Bush had the authority. John Schmidt, Asst. AG under President Clinton also states that the court has already ruled under previous cases that President Bush had the authority to issue the taps. There will be a court case that will decide it but your argument has been rebutted by highly thought of Law Scholars, not all of them Republican lackeys.And if the Presidents power is under discussion and dispute then it can't be considered criminal And the most telling point is that before President Bush tried his "Nixonian" breaking of the law he informed the leader of the opposition party and member of the Intel co. that he was going to do it. As far as I know Nixon never informed Democratic members of the Senate that he was going to do all the numerous illegal things he did. President Roosevelt monitered all incoming mail and telephone communication from Europe during WWII. Did he rape the Constitution? Should he be censured? Truman? Lincoln? If the Carter era law is unconstitutional then it can't be binding. President Bush informed Congress. Are they guilty of aiding and abetting? Schochu J.

Cass Sunstein, regarded by most to be a liberal Law proff, says that Bush had the authority. John Schmidt, Asst. AG under President Clinton also states that the court has already ruled under previous cases that President Bush had the authority to issue the taps. There will be a court case that will decide it but your argument has been rebutted by highly thought of Law Scholars, not all of them Republican lackeys.And if the Presidents power is under discussion and dispute then it can’t be considered criminal And the most telling point is that before President Bush tried his “Nixonian” breaking of the law he informed the leader of the opposition party and member of the Intel co. that he was going to do it. As far as I know Nixon never informed Democratic members of the Senate that he was going to do all the numerous illegal things he did. President Roosevelt monitered all incoming mail and telephone communication from Europe during WWII. Did he rape the Constitution? Should he be censured? Truman? Lincoln? If the Carter era law is unconstitutional then it can’t be binding. President Bush informed Congress. Are they guilty of aiding and abetting?

]]> By: klrfz1 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76515 klrfz1 Sun, 02 Apr 2006 18:53:59 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76515 Sochu John. There is a reason few are interested in a "discussion" with you. Normally there is at least some give and take in a discussion. You never give. You don't ever, ever concede anyone else's point. You don't ever, ever give out anything personal. You always, always hew to the Democrat Party line, usually the Kos Kids faction. You're never funny, rarely interesting, hardly ever bring any new or different perspective. I've heard it all before. All the questions, all the sneers, all the evasions. Everything you have to say is old news and spin. I ridicule you in the hopes that some day you will finally realize just how fucking ridiculous you are. I am an optimist. I do believe there is hope even for you. So, SJ, are you a logger? What deep blue state do you live in? What do you do when you're not doing politics? Anything? Markus did have a funny one recently: he called me an <i> "obnoxious dittohead." </i> Made me laugh because it's true. Your insults, SJ, are just pathetic. Sochu John. There is a reason few are interested in a “discussion” with you. Normally there is at least some give and take in a discussion. You never give. You don’t ever, ever concede anyone else’s point. You don’t ever, ever give out anything personal. You always, always hew to the Democrat Party line, usually the Kos Kids faction. You’re never funny, rarely interesting, hardly ever bring any new or different perspective. I’ve heard it all before. All the questions, all the sneers, all the evasions. Everything you have to say is old news and spin. I ridicule you in the hopes that some day you will finally realize just how fucking ridiculous you are. I am an optimist. I do believe there is hope even for you.

So, SJ, are you a logger? What deep blue state do you live in? What do you do when you’re not doing politics? Anything?

Markus did have a funny one recently: he called me an “obnoxious dittohead.” Made me laugh because it’s true. Your insults, SJ, are just pathetic.

]]> By: promoguy http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76514 promoguy Sun, 02 Apr 2006 17:25:46 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/03/31/the-john-deans-december-i-mean-march/#comment-76514 Kevin & Rick, 100,000 years in purgatory is that a big of a deal? Maybe you should do the Sopranos calculation to come up with the real number of years. I remember on a Sopranos episode a few years back when Christopher was in the hospital and explaining his near death dream to Paulie Walnuts, Paulie explains purgatory. Says, you figure up the years by adding your venal and mortal sins. He came up with about 1400 years to which he said he could do standing on his head. You may come up with less and I've already given you proof that it's a piece of cake. Us Jews don't worry about that stuff. We just die. Kevin & Rick, 100,000 years in purgatory is that a big of a deal? Maybe you should do the Sopranos calculation to come up with the real number of years.

I remember on a Sopranos episode a few years back when Christopher was in the hospital and explaining his near death dream to Paulie Walnuts, Paulie explains purgatory. Says, you figure up the years by adding your venal and mortal sins. He came up with about 1400 years to which he said he could do standing on his head.

You may come up with less and I’ve already given you proof that it’s a piece of cake.

Us Jews don’t worry about that stuff. We just die.

]]>