York Clinging To Gorelick Myth
York Clinging To Gorelick Myth
Yesterday we wrote:
Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority†allowed him to ignore FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act].
This morning, The National Review’s Byron York responded:
The Center’s position appears contradicted not only by Gorelick’s testimony but by a statement she made to Legal Times in November 1994, several months after her testimony, in which she said, “Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority.”
Actually, our argument is perfectly consistent with Gorelick’s statements. Both her testimony and in the Legal Times quote, were about physical searches. In 1994, the FISA did not cover physical searches. She was explaining what the President’s authority was in the absence of any congressional statute. She wasn’t arguing that the President had the authority to ignore FISA.
In 1995, with President Clinton’s signature, FISA was amended to include physical searches. That law prohibited warrantless domestic physical searches. No one in the Clinton administration, including Gorelick, ever argued that the administration could ignore the law, before or after it was amended.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The wingnuts are just desperately trying to spin their way out of this as fast as they can, knowing the average American is too busy to notice from working overtime in order to afford all of their Corporate Welfare programs.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:07 pmI think it's time to invest in motion sickness pills...
December 21st, 2005 at 2:09 pmCornyn also lied about this same exact issue to Wolf on yesterday's Situation Room.
1984, baby!
December 21st, 2005 at 2:17 pmThanks Judd! Keep up the good work on debunking the myths!
December 21st, 2005 at 2:17 pmHow exactly does it matter what Clinton administation did or think about this issue? If its illegal, its illegal for all.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:21 pmHow long before the President states his opinion that intercepting electromagnetic energy does not constitute a physical search?
The administration feels that electromagnetic energy is magic. That is to say it's not reallythere. And therefore we don't feel we've performed any physical searches. But that's all I can say at this time.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:26 pmrepublicans demostrate that when all you have to cling to is a delusion, how fiercely that irrational clinging will get...
December 21st, 2005 at 2:26 pmDoes anyone really give a crap what John Cornholing thinks? Even his recent shameless public appearances are riddled with doubt a trepidation about Bush. What a clown. What a total shame.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:29 pmJudd!
Check this article by John Schmidt who was Assoc. AG under Clinton 94-98 says Bush has the power.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
What the frak?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:30 pmBush 'pardoned' some folks on cocaine related charges, wonder if they were tied to his suppliers... It's nice that he pardoned these fine upstanding white folks for their 'cocaine' problem, but I wonder why no black folks qualified for his compassion? There are thousands of them that sure are as deserving, if not more so - and yet bush seems to only have an eye for well healed white folks when it comes to compassion. Is this what 'compassionate conservatism' really means? Only compassion for fellow conservatives who donate money to your corporate welfare campaigns?
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4331378,00.html
December 21st, 2005 at 2:36 pmBoult,
It is hard to state unequivically that the opinion of Mr Schmidt is solid.
The second paragraph is hard for me to take:
See, that is what is at issue here. Who was Bush and friends wiretapping. These guys have stated that wiretapping was only performed on communications where one of the people involved was outside the US.
But, this follow up article from the NY Times debunks that only calls to or from a person outside the US happened.
New York Times
December 21,2005
Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls
December 21st, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Has anyone asked Gorlick?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:50 pmByron York is the consumate political hack. A fatuous idiot. If Tucker Carlson died on the air doing his show, you'd have the Byron York show. I'd watch a show where guests would come on and slap the shit out of them, like John Stossel when he interviewed a pro-wrestler back in the 80's and asked if the wrestling was fake. Stossel, is all excited about tort reform and frivolous law suits now but he sued that guy back then, claiming he was "damaged for life". He is the one person I can think of who got the sense slapped out of him, permanently.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:50 pmIt is not a coincidence that "Bush Apologist", "psychologist" and "proctologist" all rhyme.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:55 pmKillcon,
That is still one of the greatest moments in TV history. Dr. D Schultz slapped that clownhole Stossel around like a pinata. One of the funniest moments ever.
-GSD
December 21st, 2005 at 2:57 pmThanks Spudge_Boy
December 21st, 2005 at 2:57 pmKillcon and GSD,
Wasn't that Geraldo Rivera? I know it was Jessie "The Body" Ventura that did the slap down. That is why he went to commentating and making movies. But, I could of sworn it was Geraldo. I know who ever it was had two blown ear drums. and a beet red face.
Boult,
This guys wouldn't have gone on every talk show known to man and Bush wouldn't have change his entire Saturday speech if they knew everything was legal. Cheney would have got in front of the camera, wave growled and told everybody to "Go fvck themselves" if it was legal to do these wiretaps.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:05 pmGSD,
It was beautiful, but only in hindsight. Stossel used to be looking out for the little guy, the consumer once. Then when he got rich, and in his own words, "no longer cared about the price of a can of peas", he became a corporate shill.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:06 pmEvery time a neocon tries to implicate Clinton in the BushCo crimes...
Ask the question...WHERE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN? YOU'VE HAD 4 YEARS TO CAPTURE HIM AND HAVE FAILED, AGAIN!
December 21st, 2005 at 3:20 pm#17.
It was John Stossel and Dr. D, David Schultz. I ruined Schultz' wrestling career and probably gave Stossel the cash infusion he needed to become a full-blown right winger who no longer gave a shit about people who still work for a lving.
Stossel was recently promoting "price gouging" during times of crisis because it helped save lives...Rich lives.
-GSD
Geraldo got his bloody nose from a white supremacist I think.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:24 pmThe incompetent must lie to give cover to incompetent and lying administration they follow.
If they were really American patriots they would be focusing on the administration's criminal behavior and breaking the U.S. laws.
Call them out. They are political hacks and nothing more. They put political party above country. It goes without saying includes put political party before God and country.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:25 pmGranite State Destroyer,
Yeah, the famous chair to the face trick. I remember that one too.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:33 pmSpudge_Boy
Yeah, that's true
December 21st, 2005 at 3:38 pm#6
The problem there is that all matter -- including biological entities -- is an artifact of electromagnetic forces.
There are two distinctions: Vibrational frequency, by which Bush can roughly discriminate between Osama bin Laden, Howie Mandel and an aluminum bin filled with contraceptive sponges.
The other distinction lies at the particle level: Theoretically Bush's intercepts could legally target all matter (organic and inorganic) that is largely conformed of bolshevons, bohemions and decent-americons. In contrast, he could illegally exclude conversations between localized electromganetic manifestations consisting primarily of enrons, plutocrons and right-handed republicons.
In either case, the electromagnetic model is rife for abuse.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:38 pmIt's not a myth. They don't call her the wall for nothing.
Bush didn't break the law and you folks know it. But, we should absolutely have impeachment hearings. It will the final nail in the left's coffin.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:39 pm"It’s not a myth. They don’t call her the wall for nothing.
Bush didn’t break the law and you folks know it. But, we should absolutely have impeachment hearings. It will the final nail in the left’s coffin."
Comment by Andy in DE —
Sounds like Andy's in DE-NIAL!
Wake up tool, and smell your defeat.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:42 pm#26 - what defeat? I don't get what you people are peddling - Democrats are in the minority on every front and it's get worse after every election.
SO explain to me what I have lost?
December 21st, 2005 at 3:45 pmman, im moving to canada ! they are freer than we are,
December 21st, 2005 at 3:46 pmCanadian court lifts ban on ‘swingers’ clubs
Group sex among consenting adults not a threat to society, it says
http://www.reuters.com/
Andy,
Really? Is that why republicans did so poorly in November? Is that why Bush's popularity ratings are the lowest of any 2nd term president? Is that why republicans had to resort to election rigging with Diebold machines (it's been proven bucko, get over it). You really should take some medication to resolve your delusional fantasies, they've made you publically pathetic.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:48 pmRyan - you made a little bit of sense until you invoked Diebold. I am not going to waste my breath on someone so obviously detached from reality. I'll just point out that Republicans still control every branch of govt. But, hang onto those polls if it makes you feel better.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:53 pm"SO explain to me what I have lost?"
Comment by Andy in DE — December 21, 2005 @
Where to start?
Rather than list the things you've lost, it is much easier to list the things you never had:
Credibility to speak on political issues.
An understanding of the Constitution.
Integity.
Historical perspective.
Rationality.
An intellect capable of discerning propaganda.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:55 pmDano - you just explained the average Democratic voter, but what have I lost?
December 21st, 2005 at 3:57 pm#30
OK, well I give up. Why can't the Pubbies get anything done, if they're all-powerful?
December 21st, 2005 at 3:58 pmShorter Denial: "I know you are but what am I?"
December 21st, 2005 at 3:58 pm#33 - we just passed a budget cutting bill. Unfortunately since Democrats voted to keep gas prices higher, we won't have ANWR. We have John Roberts. We'll have Alito. We had tax cuts and education reform.
AND you still have the filibuster - we'll get there though. After we strip Democrats that in January, we'll finsih the job for the American people.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:02 pm"[. . .] but what have I lost?"
Comment by Andy in DE — December 21, 2005
Get back to me on that in about two months, the irony will be sufficiently pungent by then. The SS Abramoff is headed right for you. Are you going to bail out like the other repub rats, or hold out for rescue?
December 21st, 2005 at 4:03 pm"Nope, no blow jobs on the horizon sir - we're sunk!"
"We’ll have Alito."
Not yet, sparky.
"We had tax cuts [for the rich, and corporations - who cares if average Americans' income has DECLINED since Bush was installed?] "and education [unfunded mandate that school districts are abandoning as unworkable] reform."
Sounds peachy.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:07 pmWhoops, punked another one.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:08 pm"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."
This seems to be the point that right wingers are harping on, believing that it means the president's inherent authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps in some cases allows him to violate FISA, particularly section 1802 regarding no spying on American persons without a warrant.
What gives the president inherent authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance? He has a duty to protect the Constitution, and in emergencies he might have to take measures which violate the Constitution, including surveillance.
But at what point does that inherent authority run into the protections of the 4th Amendment? It seems to me that where there is no emergency, there should be no use of an inherent power which violates 4th Amendment protections. And in the present case, there is obviously no emergency, as 50 U.S.C. 1805f allows for warrantless wiretaps on American persons, so long as an application to FISA is made within 72 hours. It's legal even in the unlikely event the FISA court denies the application (at which point it becomes illegal of course).
December 21st, 2005 at 4:09 pm#35
Unfortunately since Democrats voted to keep gas prices higher, we won’t have ANWR.
Oh, like 6 weeks worth of oil would have made an impact? Get serious, In DEnial. It's not all about YOU. We don't need to touch ANWAR. It won't make a different to consumers, and it's not worth the damage to the reserve. Selfish jerk.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:13 pmI'd like to see Andy De-nials law degree and license.
He cannot dispute the opinions of those who are actual Legal Scholars.
He's a troll who hides under the bed until the bell rings that prompts him to dial up and go in to propaganda mode.
Trolls-programed puppets.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:16 pmSteve Nichols,
December 21st, 2005 at 4:17 pmBush's latest remarks indicate he is falling back on classic fear mongering. Problem is, a super majority of Americans believe he lied and fear mongered us into war. I really think this is it for him. The GOP will have to eat their own and impeach this clown to save their seats.
Republicans never let Clinton Spy on Americans.
http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/policy.html
Over one year ago President Clinton asked Congress for legislation to strengthen our ability to combat international terrorism. On April 24th the President signed S. 735, the ?Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996? into law. Congress included many of the Administration's proposals in their bill, giving our law enforcement officials tough new tools to stop terrorists before they strike, and to bring them to justice if they do. The legislation bans fundraising in the United States that supports terrorist organizations. It also allows U.S. officials to deport terrorists from American soil without being compelled by the terrorists to divulge classified information, and to bar terrorists from entering the United States in the first place.
Nevertheless, as strong as the bill was, it should have been stronger. For example, President Clinton asked the Congress to give U.S. law enforcement increased wiretap authority in terrorism cases. But the Congress refused. After the President proposed that the Secretary of the Treasury consider the inclusion of taggants in explosive materials, so that bombs can be traced more easily to the bomb makers, the Congress exempted black and smokeless powder -- two of the most commonly used substances in improvised explosive devices.
Do a google search on Clinton + Wiretapping. You will find out how scared right wingers were of Clinton being allowed to do it.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:19 pmHey Andy De-nial, Alito has already been warned that he will be grilled on the crimes that Bushie and Cheney say they will continue to break.
No republican or democrat will confirm Alito when he says that he would provide BushCo the right to break the law.
In addition to that, many members of the Senate are women and republican, Alito hates women, the women will not vote for a woman hater.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:20 pmDuh, what does it mean to be a thinker?
December 21st, 2005 at 4:24 pmBetter Late Then Never
December 21, 2005
The latest bunk in diverting the truth about Bush’s illegal spying on innocent Americans is the Gorelick myth. During the then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick of 1994, President Clinton had inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes which is the typical lie of the extreme right-wing National Review by Byron York. What York is not mentioning is that, at the time (1994), physical searches were not covered under FISA. It wasn’t until 1995 that with Clinton’s backing; the law was amended to include physical searches. The distinction is clear. The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed FISA a law that they could around and ignore it. Congress is now not ignoring President Bush.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:33 pmAndy,
I guess you missed the memo which pointed out that in the BEST CASE ANWR would reduce gas prices by $.01 (that's right a penny), whereas forcing detroit to improve the gasoline fuel efficiency by just 1 MPG would have a much more dramatic effect.
This is retarded idiocy, just like katrina, iraq, the recession/depression and every other republican screw up since they've been in office. They can't see the forest or the trees - clearly they're insane.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:33 pmRepublicans like andy fight over OIL issues that don't actually matter, because liberty and the constitution isn't important to fascist terrorists like them.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:33 pm"God came to me last night in a dream, and told me I was being a bad person, and to stop all the mean things I am doing. God also told me I would go to hell if I keep it up. So I became inspired, I have fired my entire staff, I am changing my party to Democrat, and I want to say I am sorry for all the misery and suffering I have caused. I am going to stop funding the rich and taking from the poor. I am going to start troop withdrawal from Iraq. I am going to apologize to Saddam for being his freind, and then stabbing him in the back. I am withdrawing my nomination for Alito. I am going to tell the oil companies that I am pushing for laws to control their behaviors.
I would also like to thank all the Democrats for giving me this chance to make things right.
President George W. Bush
December 21st, 2005 at 4:38 pmAnyone watch Byron York when he is on TV? He is a self-absorbed know-it-all who sniffs around the lowly peasants inhabiting his earth.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:52 pmByron York wears panties and pumps.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:57 pmMarie,
December 21st, 2005 at 5:03 pmI heard something today that I was was aware of but had never quite been able to verbalize. On Diane Rehm a guest was discussing the reality that there is little or no debate in the scientific community about intelligent design. But if you turn on the TV you get the impression that the ID debate is more or less a 50/50 struggle because of news/talk show formats. Shows that have guests like York on a regular basis.
The White House does not think the domestic spying story will resonate with Americans over the holidays.
-Suzanne Malveaux, CNN
December 21st, 2005 at 5:12 pmNice spin...as if the introduction of legislation, FISA, which creates new tools for the government, would take away that power which Gorelick argued for.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:35 pmThe whitehouse also thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and that FEMA was prepared for Katrina - we all know how 'accurate' and 'effective' the thoughts of this administration is.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:16 pmJudd - it was well estalished a long time ago that Byron York is a serial liar. As long as the Administration and its rightwing supporters pay Byron's rent, he'll write whatever garbage they want to see in print over at NRO. But then - it IS the National Review we are talking about.
December 21st, 2005 at 7:40 pmCan anyone tell me how effective getting a warrant that typically takes 72 hours to get a wiretap will be when the terrorists change their cell phone numbers more often than their underwear? Also, can anyone name one initiative or idea originated by the democratic party to effectively stop terrorism? You can't in either case because you guys are so weak and pathetic. You are losers, have been losers and will always be losers.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:41 pmRSW,
Typically takes 72 hours? You're a RETARD, didn't you read any of the threads before you made this ridiculous claim? Do you even know squat about the FISA statute (clearly not!). Where did you get your retarded lie - limbaugh the fat stupid druggie?
1) They can wiretap for 72 hours BEFORE THEY ARE GRANTED THE WARRANT you moron.
2) The warrant is usually returned in less than 24 hours.
3) At the point Bush began this nonsense (2002), not a single warrant had been rejected by the court.
Before you call others losers, do your homework. Not only do you look like the loser, you look like the unamerican, unpatriotic, and lying loser that seems to be the backbone of the republican retards these days.
You are a FOOL!
December 21st, 2005 at 8:52 pmRyan,
You also forgot to slap RSW with the fact that almost 19,000 warrants have been requested from the FISA court, since its inception and only 4 have been turned down.
Let's see 19,000 since 1978 and only 4 have been turned down.
That would be like .00125% of the requested warrants were turned down.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:40 pmRyan, Depending on the reading of the law, they actually have 15 days to get the warrant if congress has "declared" war in some way.
http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/FISA-Summary.html
"Permits the President, through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance without a court order to acquire foreign intelligence information for up to 15 days during a Congressionally declared war."
But I'm sure RSW already knew that from listening to Rush Limbaugh and Faux News.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:42 pmRSW,
Just curious, but which lying liar told you the information you quoted about "72 hours"? We're in a new age. Proven Liars like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc can't get away with it anymore like they did in the 1990s. Sites like ThinkProgress.org, MediaMatters.org have paid employees who track the lies put out by the Right Wing Noise machine and put out information like this blog to counteract it. Sorry to tell you this, but you've been manipulated by a well funded right wing propaganda machine who does not have your best interests in mind.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:59 pmCan anyone tell me how effective getting a warrant that typically takes 72 hours to get a wiretap will be when the terrorists change their cell phone numbers more often than their underwear?
Comment by Red State Warrior — December 21, 2005 @ 8:41 pm
I must commend you Red State Warrior: You just won, in singular confrontation, a mighty victory over a strawman.
Warrior indeed.
Also, can anyone name one initiative or idea originated by the democratic party to effectively stop terrorism? You can’t in either case because you guys are so weak and pathetic.
Can anyone name a factual statement in this inane post? Or is it just mere strawman arguments and other logical fallacies?
You are losers, have been losers and will always be losers.
Yes, Red State Warrior, we bow before your infinite wisdom and fact-filled comments.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:23 am
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:58 am"Also, can anyone name one initiative or idea originated by the democratic party to effectively stop terrorism?"
Red State Worrier
Not electing republicans (who are proven incompetents)for one - and that's a big one!
"Can anyone tell me how effective getting a warrant that typically takes 72 hours to get a wiretap will be when the terrorists change their cell phone numbers more often than their underwear?"
How do YOU know how often terrorists change their underwear? Perhaps we should suggest to Fatherland Security that they check your hamper - it might reveal exactly how much support terrorists have been receiving from conservatives like you. I hope you have a good lawyer - or a good detergent.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:15 amCan anyone tell me how effective getting a warrant that typically takes 72 hours to get a wiretap will be when the terrorists change their cell phone numbers more often than their underwear?
Comment by Red State Warrior #57
RSW,
Typically takes 72 hours? You’re a RETARD, didn’t you read any of the threads before you made this ridiculous claim? Do you even know squat about the FISA statute (clearly not!).
Comment by Ryan Neat #58
Ryan,
Proof positive these red state inbreds argue, fight, preach, and support things they have NO CLUE about. RSW probably supports the cuts for higher education (that might possibly make his/her and his/her children's- heaven forbid- lives better) in favor of capital gains tax cuts (that he/she probably doesn't benefit from to any significant degree).
Inbreds- you gotta love 'em...or do you?
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:10 pmInbreds- you gotta love ‘em…or do you?
Comment by big papa — December 22, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
Apparently, they're all loving one another... :)
December 26th, 2005 at 8:51 am