Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
They skipped over that part on Fox.

I skipped over something too:

What makes Hank's response even weaker is that the statute had a 45-day reauthorization for a reason. If DOJ was obliged to reauthorize it every time it came up simply because it had done so before, well, then the reauthorization provision is pretty pointless. Quite clearly the statute contemplated that hte facts or views of the law might change over time, and that a continuing need had to be rejustified with regularity.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Seriously, you're talking about stopping a program that had been ongoing for a period of years, not starting it. the admin thought it was important and providing a real benefit. then, when the AG goes down, all of a sudden his stand-in tells the admin, (for the apparent first time?) that he will not sign it. remember, someone must have signed for it initially.

I realize how tacky it sounds on paper, but are you telling me it is that unreasonable to go ask the real AG if he agrees?

Here's a different view:

• When the warrantless wiretap surveillance program came up for review in March of 2004, it had been running for two and a half years. We still don't know precisely what form the program took in that period, although some details have been leaked. But we now know, courtesy of Comey, that the program was so odious, so thoroughly at odds with any conception of constitutional liberties, that not a single senior official in the Bush administration's own Department of Justice was willing to sign off on it. In fact, Comey reveals, the entire top echelon of the Justice Department was prepared to resign rather than see the program reauthorized, even if its approval wasn't required. They just didn't want to be part of an administration that was running such a program.
  
  This wasn't an emergency program; more than two years had elapsed, ample time to correct any initial deficiencies. It wasn’t a last minute crisis; Ashcroft and Comey had both been saying, for weeks, that they would withhold
  approval. But at the eleventh hour, the President made one final push, dispatching his most senior aides to try to secure approval for a continuation of the program, unaltered. . . .
  
  I think it’s safe to assume that whatever they were fighting over, it was a matter of substance. When John Ashcroft is prepared to resign, and risk bringing down a Republican administration in the process, he’s not doing it for kicks. Similarly, when the President sends his aides to coerce a signature out of a desperately ill man, and only backs down when the senior leadership of a cabinet department threatens to depart en masse, he’s not just being stubborn.
  
  It’s time that the Democrats in Congress blew the lid off of the NSA’s surveillance program. Whatever form it took for those years was blatantly illegal; so egregious that by 2004, not even the administration’s most partisan members could stomach it any longer. We have a right to know what went on then. We publicize the rules under which the government can obtain physical search warrants, and don’t consider revealing those rules to endanger security; there’s no reason we can’t do the same for electronic searches. The late-night drama makes for an interesting news story, but it’s really beside the point. The punchline here is that the President of the United States engaged in a prolonged and willful effort to violate the law, until senior members of his own administration forced him to stop. That’s the Congressional investigation that we ought to be having.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I see several possible interpretations.

d. Hank may have once been funny.

He's still got it, but he doesn't bring it every night. It's a long season, and old pro like Hank knows to save it for the playoffs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That would be a good take if it were accurate.

Fact of it is that DOJ reviewed the program well before he got sick, and revealed its concerns to Ashcroft, who shared them. Then he got sick.

ummm, i read the testimony. it was the first time i actually read anything here and if you tell me it doesn't matter even when you read it, well I'll be happy to not read anything in the future, believe me.

Ashcroft and Comey agreed on their concerns. Did The WH know about those concerns prior to Comey telling them while Ashcroft was in the hospital- if not, then is it unreasonable to check with Ashcroft.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm, i read the testimony. it was the first time i actually read anything here and if you tell me it doesn't matter even when you read it, well I'll be happy to not read anything in the future, believe me.

Ashcroft and Comey agreed on their concerns. Did The WH know about those concerns prior to Comey telling them while Ashcroft was in the hospital- if not, then is it unreasonable to check with Ashcroft.

Based on other articles, my sense is they knew. It's not unreasonable to obtain his views. But if they were doing it above-board, why would they not call Comey, who was acting at the time, and invite him to the bull session?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if not, then is it unreasonable to check with Ashcroft.

As a matter of law, yes, if Comey was the acting AG.

As a matter of fundamental decency, yes, if Ashcroft was in the condition Comey describes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I see several possible interpretations. Let's vote on what makes the most sense:

a. Hank believes in taxing the poor. The rich should keep their money.

b. Canadian healthcare is to Hank as the Teachers Union is to Spanky.

c. When Hank fell off the table at that Windsor strip club, he was surprised at how little the operation cost.

d. Hank may have once been funny.

e. All of the above.

I vote "c".

sorry. F. it was repeating some idiotic thing you had psoted about a year ago. I don't suppose it would be fair to hold you to the standard of remembering every idiotic thing you've said though.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
sorry. F. it was repeating some idiotic thing you had psoted about a year ago. I don't suppose it would be fair to hold you to the standard of remembering every idiotic thing you've said though.

Ah, yes, F, "Hank was so drunk he didn't know what he was saying" - yes, that's the original source, thank you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He's still got it, but he doesn't bring it every night. It's a long season, and old pro like Hank knows to save it for the playoffs.

Wait, when are the playoffs?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here's a different view:

• When the warrantless wiretap surveillance program came up for review in March of 2004, it had been running for two and a half years. We still don't know precisely what form the program took in that period, although some details have been leaked. But we now know, courtesy of Comey, that the program was so odious, so thoroughly at odds with any conception of constitutional liberties, that not a single senior official in the Bush administration's own Department of Justice was willing to sign off on it. In fact, Comey reveals, the entire top echelon of the Justice Department was prepared to resign rather than see the program reauthorized, even if its approval wasn't required. They just didn't want to be part of an administration that was running such a program.
  
  This wasn't an emergency program; more than two years had elapsed, ample time to correct any initial deficiencies. It wasn’t a last minute crisis; Ashcroft and Comey had both been saying, for weeks, that they would withhold
  approval. But at the eleventh hour, the President made one final push, dispatching his most senior aides to try to secure approval for a continuation of the program, unaltered. . . .
  
  I think it’s safe to assume that whatever they were fighting over, it was a matter of substance. When John Ashcroft is prepared to resign, and risk bringing down a Republican administration in the process, he’s not doing it for kicks. Similarly, when the President sends his aides to coerce a signature out of a desperately ill man, and only backs down when the senior leadership of a cabinet department threatens to depart en masse, he’s not just being stubborn.
  
  It’s time that the Democrats in Congress blew the lid off of the NSA’s surveillance program. Whatever form it took for those years was blatantly illegal; so egregious that by 2004, not even the administration’s most partisan members could stomach it any longer. We have a right to know what went on then. We publicize the rules under which the government can obtain physical search warrants, and don’t consider revealing those rules to endanger security; there’s no reason we can’t do the same for electronic searches. The late-night drama makes for an interesting news story, but it’s really beside the point. The punchline here is that the President of the United States engaged in a prolonged and willful effort to violate the law, until senior members of his own administration forced him to stop. That’s the Congressional investigation that we ought to be having.

the other weird thing is that even though Comey's concerns were met and the program went forward with his apporoval- the revised program was the horiibly offensive and unconstitutional program we first learned of last year.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He's still got it, but he doesn't bring it every night. It's a long season, and old pro like Hank knows to save it for the playoffs.

responding to him is different than responding to PPNYC how?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ah, yes, F, "Hank was so drunk he didn't know what he was saying" - yes, that's the original source, thank you.

Ruling please: RT, I can count this one, yes?


489-13

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Richard Viguerie on Rudy Giuliani:

• "If the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani as its candidate for either president or vice president, I will personally work to defeat the GOP ticket in 2008," says Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.
  "Rudy Giuliani is wrong on all of the social issues, is wrong on the Second Amendment, and is pretty much a blank slate on all other issues of importance to conservatives," Viguerie adds. "If the Republican Party nominates him, it is saying to the American people that it has lost all purpose except the raw political desire to hold power. It will be time to put the GOP out of its misery."
  Viguerie made his comments in response to Tuesday night's debate in South Carolina between the Republican presidential candidates.
  "I continue to urge conservatives to withhold their support from all of the present candidates," he said. "The leading candidates aren't worthy of conservative support, and the few who are truly conservative don't have a realistic chance of getting the nomination."
  "But Rudy Giuliani is a special case," Viguerie continued. "In recent days, he has reaffirmed his long-standing support of abortion, and Politico.com has revealed his numerous contributions to Planned Parenthood, the nation's biggest supplier of abortions. His comments in the debate did nothing to diminish his affront to those who believe in the culture of life."
  "It's Rudy or the GOP," Viguerie concluded. "We're in a political version of 'The Survivor,' and both cannot survive politically."

link

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
responding to him is different than responding to PPNYC how?

Does that make you Thurgreed? Ow, my head hurts now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As a matter of law, yes, if Comey was the acting AG.

Is that a life appointment? if not, at whose pleasure does the acting AG serve? If comey was a lone wolf on the issue they needed to know.