The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter. Read more

Yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said President Bush’s warrantless spying activies were part of a “very concentrated, very limited program.”

But during today’s press briefing, Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler stated his “understanding” that the program was used “18,000-plus times.” Scott McClellan refused to confirm or deny Goler’s numbers:

GOLER: It’s our understanding this power has been used 18,000-plus times. Are we to presume that there are that many al Qaeda agents in this country?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to get into talking about more than what we’ve said publicly. That’s getting into more than what we’ve talked about publicly, so I’m not in a position to confirm or deny the numbers that you threw out there.

If Goler is correct, Bush’s program could hardly be described as “very concentrated” or “very limited.”

UPDATE: As commenter jsp points out, Goler may be conflating the number of times Bush’s program was deployed with the number of authorized FISA warrants, which number approximately 19,000.

Transcript continues below: Read more

On Sunday night, Frist and Hastert inserted an stealth provision into the 2006 Defense Appropriations spending report “that protects vaccine manufacturers from product liability claims in the event of a viral pandemic, such as one caused by avian flu.” But not only is this provision unrelated to defense appropriations spending, it was inserted after conferees had signed off on the report and will benefit foreign-owned corporations:

Observers familiar with the procedural history of conference reports said that they were unaware of any precedent for inserting language after conferees had signed off on the report. … If the law is applied as Frist and other supporters intend, it will represent enormous financial relief for a small group of largely foreign-owned pharmaceutical companies that have worked to promote vaccine liability protection.

Sanofi Pasteur, one of the corporations set to gain from Frist’s provision, has given $5,000 to the senator’s PAC.

More from slingshot.org: here here and here.

the latest publication to make it onto Bill O’Reilly’s enemies list.

Bush, April 2004:

Transcript: Read more

In the National Review, Byron York has an article called “Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches.” In it, he cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony where she argues “the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” (This afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) quoted her testimony on the Senate floor.)

Here is what York obscures: at the time of Gorelick’s testimony, physical searches weren’t covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches weren’t covered by FISA. They weren’t. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.

York claims that, after the law was amended, “the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.” That’s false. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority” allowed him to ignore FISA. (We’ve posted the full text of Gorelick’s testimony here).

The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed it as a recommendations they could ignore. That’s the difference.

Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him.

QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?

BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want — I don’t need to consult any other branches — that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.

(Listen to The Diane Rehm show here. The segment above begins at 33:40)
Read more

former Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan: Bush is claiming “more power than King George III had at the time of the revolution, in asserting the theory that anything the president thinks is helpful to fighting the war against terrorism he can do.” Audio here.

Samuel Alito “was warned yesterday” by Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the chairman and vice-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, “that he will be expected to comment on the revelation that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without seeking a court order.”