Skip to main content

View Diary: Tom DeLay and Warrantless Wiretapping (103 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh my (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    illyia, means are the ends

    You mean to say that, even tho the law only requires that AT LEAST the gang of eight be briefed, that the majority leader of the House, who is also of the President's own party, and is known to really be the power in the House at that time, also got briefed, perhaps at his request?  Wow, what a scandal.  Why would the WH do something like that?

    R U kidding me?  I mean, God knows I have no use for DeLay but let's put away the Tinfoil hats shall we?  He was the Majority Leader of the House, he asked to be briefed and, since they briefed everyone else that they were required to brief, and they knew he'd be a help they briefed him...alone.

    Sorry, there's no 'there' there.

    •  What is your evidence he asked to be briefed? (16+ / 0-)

      What is your evidence that he had a right to be briefed?  There were many congressmen asking to be briefed, and the answer was "classified, need to know basis"

      Why brief him on that day?
      Why never brief him in the program's history?

      Maybe this was a simple briefing as a favor to an ally, but the timing is notable and the non-statutory nature of his position (Not Gang of 8) is unprecedented in the program's history.

      I think I have a right and responsibility to point this out.  I make it clear that I do not know why he was briefed, but given what I know about the March 10 events and the history of this administration, I don't think my speculative questions are tin foil hattery.

      •  You're right about this. (9+ / 0-)

        There is no way BushCo is or has ever been in the business of giving classified briefings to people who "ask" for them.

        Somebody in the administration [R-O-V-E, pass it on . . .] thought that DeLay was in a position to plug some kind of political hole for them after the failure in Ashcroft's hospital room. They also might have had the whispers of those resignations tenders that had floated up the food chain too.

        You're right about this. It stinks.

      •  Oh please (0+ / 0-)

        I need 'evidence' that he asked to be briefed?  Fine, he didn't ask and got briefed anyway as an afterthought.  So what?  He was arguably the Administration's biggest ally on the Hill and what is YOUR evidence that the material was on a 'need to know' basis?  The fact that they only have to brief the gang of 8 does NOT, in fact, prove that.  And the fact that he was never briefed before can certainly raise an inference that he asked to be briefed.  As for the fact that other people asked to be briefed and weren't?  Yeah, the WH only briefs who it has to and its friends in Congress, so what?  I mean, does it stink?  yeah.  Is it any kind of news?  No.

        •  It's news to me... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drational, allie123

          "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

          by dotdot on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 07:09:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand your tack (7+ / 0-)

          A very important event occurred the night before, one the Administration has tried to cover-up for years.  

          The following day, a congressman in a purely political position was briefed for the first time on the program that nearly caused a substantial part of the DOJ to resign.

          To me, that is a "kind of news" that should be considered further.

          It is clear that you don't consider it important.  I disagree.  I'd like to understand why you don't think it is important to understand what happened behind the scenes in our Government concerning the Hospital Signature Mission, and more importantly, the machinations in place that allowed the potentially illegal Warrantless Wiretapping program to begin and continue.

          Do you really not care, or do you have another issue?

          •  sometimes (0+ / 0-)

            a coincidence is just a coincidence.  If you REALLY followed the timeline, you'd see that, yeah, the visit was the night before the briefing, yet the briefing occurred PRIOR to the confrontation with Mueller, Comey etc.

            In addition, you have absolutely NO IDEA whether the briefing was SCHEDULED prior to the visit or not.  None.

            So go spin your conspiracy theories.  But you asked in your diary what people think.  You admitted in your diary that you have no idea if there's anyting there.  I told you what I thought and you decide that you'd rather do a tinfoil hat diary.  Well have at it.  Let me know when the aliens landed.

            •  it is valueable information (0+ / 0-)

              it may or may not proof to be important but it is something i am glad to know as a citizen.  if it was not posted here, nobody from the gov was going to mention it.  when we have a government that hides everything we have to piece things together.  this is a piece of the story.  where it leads if left to be seen.  i don't understand the objection to the post.  it does not claim to proof anything, it is just information.

              •  I don't object to the post (0+ / 0-)

                I object to the slam I get when, after the poster asks us to tell him what we think, and i tell him there's no story there, he goes off and demands that I prove a negative.  All I was trying to say is that there are plenty of non-conspiratorial reasons why DeLay was briefed and when he was briefed.  As I said, if you'd rather go off to the grassy knoll (TM/Televisionwithoutpity) have fun.

                •  I didn't demand you prove a negative (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rincewind

                  I didn't Demand anything.  I just asked you to have the same burden of proof you placed on me.

                  I asked you to cite evidence he requested meeting (proving a positive assertion), and evidence that the Majority leader in the house is briefed for classified info (proving another positive).
                  then I asked you a couple of other questions that called for analysis.

                  Please note that my diary did not assert to be proof and clearly stated that it was speculative, whereas your statement was a positive assertion of fact, with no disclaimer:

                  He was the Majority Leader of the House, he asked to be briefed and, since they briefed everyone else that they were required to brief, and they knew he'd be a help they briefed him...alone.

                •  He didn't ask you to prove a negative (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jimreyn

                  You made an assertion

                  ...he asked to be briefed and, since they briefed everyone else...

                  and he asked you to provide the basis for that assertion.  Actually that brief excerpt contains two assertions, and as near as I can tell there is no evidence to support either one.

                  So you're personally indifferent to the question.  Fine, go ask another question that you care about.  But don't confuse your personal indifference with some sort of reality check.  All you've got is your personal belief that your speculations are more valid than drational's.

                  The chips are down. Find your outrage.

                  by sj on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:12:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Since you're quoting (0+ / 0-)

                    How about you go back to what I said and what he said:

                    I said:

                    the majority leader of the House, who is also of the President's own party, and is known to really be the power in the House at that time, also got briefed, perhaps at his request?  

                    I assume you can notice the word "perhaps" there, right?

                    And yes, in the second paragraph, I put my theory forth, without the perhaps, forgive me for that.

                    To which he responded:

                    What is your evidence that he had a right to be briefed? There were many congressmen asking to be briefed, and the answer was "classified, need to know basis"

                    Why brief him on that day?
                    Why never brief him in the program's history?

                    I never said he had 'right' to be briefed,what I said was that the facts show the probably asked to be briefed and the WH accomodated him.  the poster then went on to make; one assumption on the classification, which is totally wrong and which he never supported; one question, which I had already answered with my theory, which is at least as probable as his; and then the combination of a question that assumes a fact of which the poster has no idea whatsoever.

                    So yeah, I want some substantiation for his claims.  And, as far as I know, a 'perhaps' doesn't need proof.  It was a THEORY.  There were no facts asserted by me whatsoever.

                    Oh I'm sorry, you said that I asserted two facts, the second one being that 'everyone else was briefed'.  As anyone who can read can plainly see, I was referring to the Gang of Eight and, since the poster plainly put up a document showing that, in fact, they were briefed, which was also a factor in the subject of the post, I didn't think that I had to prove it again.

            •  Timeline (0+ / 0-)

              March 10, 2004= Briefing Gang of Eight
              Night of March 10, 2004= Comey/Gonzales showdown.
              March 11, 2004= Date the program was up for reauthorization.
              March 11, 2004= DeLay Briefing.

              So the Gang of 8 briefing was before the confrontation, but the DeLay briefing was the subsequent day.

              So not only are you wrong in reconstructing a timeline here, you are kind of being a nasty person.  

      •  I'm soooo tired of the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PatsBard

        tin foil accusations and black helicopter jokes...

        "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

        by dotdot on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 07:08:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site