Well the hearings are just commencing. Started out with an argument over the swearing in of AG Gonzales. Specter and crew prevailed...is not to be sworn. Both Feingold and Leahy strongly objected.

How Gonzales Plans to Defend Eavesdropping


TIME Exclusive: Attorney General will tell Senators that wiretaps target suspects, not innocents

By MIKE ALLEN/WASHINGTON


Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales plans to use a Congressional hearing on Monday to lash out at "misinformed, confused" news accounts about President George W. Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program, and to declare it "is not a dragnet," according to administration documents provided to TIME. "I cannot and will not address operational aspects of the program or other purported activities described in press reports," he plans to say in testimony prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee. "These press accounts are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confused, or wrong."

According to the documents, Gonzales plans to assert in his opening statement that seeking approval for the wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court could result in delays that "may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack." He will compare the program to telegraph wiretapping during the Civil War. In accompanying testimony, the Attorney General plans to leave open the possibility that President Bush will ask the court to give blanket approval to the program, a step that some lawmakers and even some Administration officials contend would put it on more solid legal footing.

In pointed written questions posed in advance by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Gonzales was asked whether he would "consider seeking approval from the FISA Court at this time for the ongoing surveillance program at issue." According to 11 pages of answers to the 15 questions, Gonzales will reply, "We use FISA where we can, and we always consider all of our legal options."

Specter has said that warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is "wrong," but Senate aides say he has concluded Bush acted in good faith. Specter's hearing, which is scheduled to last most of Monday, will focus on presidential powers in wartime and will examine whether Bush took legal shortcuts in implementing the program, which allows the National Security Agency to monitor communications involving suspected al-Qaeda members if one party to the conversation is inside the U.S. The program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks and was exposed by the New York Times in December. Since then, lawmakers have complained that the administration's legal arguments are shaky, and have contended that briefings for the House and Senate intelligence committees were inadequate or misleading.

The Attorney General plans to tell Specter that the program is more limited than has been portrayed in some news reports, which have suggested that it could impinge on the privacy of innocent Americans through vast data mining of conversations and e-mails carried by telecommunication companies' trunk lines. "Contrary to the speculation reflected in some media reporting," Gonzales writes, "the terrorist surveillance program is not a dragnet that sucks in all conversations and uses computer searches to pick out calls of interest. No communications are intercepted unless first it is determined that one end of the call is outside of the country and professional intelligence experts have probable cause (that is, ‘reasonable grounds to believe') that a party to the communication is a member or agent of al-Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization." No telecommunications executives are scheduled to testify Monday. Gonzales says President Bush reviews and reauthorizes the program "approximately every 45 days."

The hearing is likely to delve into whether the White House considered seeking congressional permission for the program and was rebuffed. That could call into question the Administration argument that the President has the authority under his constitutional powers as commander in chief and under a congressional resolution authorizing military force against terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat who was Senate Majority Leader at the time, wrote in the Washington Post in December that White House lawyers had used negotiations over the resolution to seek broader presidential authority within the U.S. and not just overseas. "I refused," Daschle wrote.

Some administration statements have suggested Bush went ahead with the program after concluding that Congress would reject legislation specifically authorizing it. However, Gonzales says in his answers to Specter that members of Congress "advised the Administration that more specific legislation could not be enacted without likely compromising the terrorist surveillance program by disclosing program details and operational limitations and capabilities to our enemies." Gonzales says that critics "have misinterpreted or misconstrued" a statement he made in the White House briefing room on Dec. 19, just ahead of a Presidential news conference in the East Room. The Attorney General had said, then, that the Administration had discussions with certain lawmakers in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks "about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA."

"We were advised that that was not likely to be — that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program," Gonzales had said in December. "So a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program."

Specter asked Gonzales if the program allowed monitoring of foreign calls if they were routed through switches physically located on U.S. soil. "None of the intercepts at issue constitutes a violation of law or regulation," Gonzales replies. "I cannot give a more complete answer here, because I cannot go into operational details." The Attorney General's testimony reiterates the basic case the Justice Department made Jan. 19 in a 42-page statement of "legal authorities" for the program, and in a five-page letter to the intelligence committees in December.

A Congressional Research Service analysis said in January that the executive branch's briefings for Congress "would appear to be inconsistent with the law," since they were limited only to eight top leaders. But Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) supported the President on Friday in a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who had said in a video news release in December that the program was reminiscent of "the dark days of President Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew."

Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a letter to President Bush on Wednesday that the "activities of the NSA program can — and should — be accomplished within the law, not by circumventing it." Harman, one of the few lawmakers who has been briefed on the program, wrote that she is "not clear why FISA as presently drafted cannot cover the entire program."

Gonzales contends in his 10-page opening statement for Monday's hearing that fighting al-Qaeda "is, in fundamental respects, a war of information," and that asking the FISA court for permission for each intercept "would necessarily introduce a significant factor of delay, and there would be critical holes in our early warning system." Lawmakers in both parties have asked why the Administration could not use a FISA provision allowing petitions to the court after monitoring has begun. Gonzales says there "is a serious misconception" about those provisions, and that the administration could not begin surveillance "without knowing that we meet FISA's normal requirements." He said a FISA application "involves a substantial process" that "consumes valuable resources and results in significant delay," when what is needed is "the maximum in speed and agility."

The opening statement does not address criticism by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), a possible Presidential candidate, that Gonzales misled senators during his confirmation hearing in January 2005. During the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales whether, in his opinion, the President has "the authority acting as commander in chief to authorize warrantless searches of Americans' homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country." Gonzales, whose answer addressed administration policy on torture, replied that the senator was discussing "a hypothetical situation."


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1156499,00.html

the time Article is pretty close to AG Gonzales's opening statement that he is now giving.

Maybe, Alberto Gonzales should be given the job of stopping illegals, drug and human prostitution from filtering in through the Mexican Borders first, before he begins shamming America's Constitution in the name of the Bush Regime's BS about War on Terror. Illegals, drug and prostitution trafficking is terror for America!

Did anybody watch the other C-Span on World Economic Forum, and really look at those slimy clowns, like Chalabi, that Iraqi ReConstruction Minister, and Iraqi's well-fed President, who sound more like opportunists wanting more money to be fed into Iraq by America. Why aren't they demanding their rich oil neighbors put in the money instead of us?

It's beginning to show, again and again, Bush is great in appointing Mouth-piece flashers to hum in his support!

So Gonzales isn't sworn in...means he can lie up the gazoo...

In the end they will whitewash this, and if there is a big enough outrage then a special prosecutor, but not without a fight

I am not going to watch much...we already know they are illegal, let's get to the impeachment

They should change the format of these from one of a time limit to one of each person asking 10 questions, and 10 good answers have to be given, otherwise follow-ups.

It is evident that they try to run the clock out all the time.

That is wrong.

And why isn't he sworn in?

Supposedly Specter's reasoning is that he would commit perjury under existing Congressional rules...if he were to lie and they could still hold him accountable. Feingold argued that he was under oath when he gave prior statements to the committee. Specter argued how embarrassed witnesses are to raise their hands.


Leahy up now

what???
If he lied he would commit perjury???what the hell does that mean?

lying to the committee, Specter argued carries the same weight as lying under oath. So, I have to wonder why swear anyone at all????It doesn't make sense. they trust AG Gonzales , but not other people?

Powell: 'Nothing wrong' with eavesdropping
(AP)
Updated: 2005-12-26 08:40


Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday supported government eavesdropping to prevent terrorism but said a major controversy over presidential powers could have been avoided by obtaining court warrants.

Powell said that when he was in the Cabinet, he was not told that President Bush authorized a warrantless National Security Agency surveillance operation after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week" Powell said he sees "absolutely nothing wrong with the president authorizing these kinds of actions" to protect the nation.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2...tent_506582.htm

There goes Marine with big big print trying to ruin another thread

He has done this now about ten different threads like this

Powell is not a Constitutional lawyer

Oh yeah? Can Gonzales just repeat Bush's words, "we have been attacked" as the Bush authority to become almighty god? Hurray for Sen. Leahy for putting Gonzales in his "little whiny Boy" position. Notice that Gonzales can't even answer with real reasoning, safe for repeating his same statements over and over again - the very statements that are prompting his unanswered reponses to the questions? Notice that Gonzales is getting real frustrated? Watch his stiff lips!

POWELL PARTICIPATED IN A HOAX


Powell's former chief of staff on Iraq intel: 'I participated in a hoax'
02/05/2006 @ 6:49 pm
Filed by Muriel Kane


In an interview that aired on PBS on Friday, Feb. 3, Colin Powell's former chief of staff claimed that the speech Powell made before the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, laying out a case for war with Iraq, included falsehoods of which Powell had never been made aware. He said, "My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."

Advertisement
Colonel (ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson, a veteran of the Vietnam War, served for many years as Powell's consultant and advisor. He stated in the interview that he was "intimately involved in the preparation of Secretary Powell for his five February 2003 presentation at the UN Security Council" and that neither CIA Director George Tenent nor the CIA analysts involved in furnishing Powell with the information on mobile biological laboratories that he would use in his speech gave any indication that there were disputes about the reliability of the informants who had supplied this information.

Wilkerson still sees this lapse as the result of a profound intelligence failure, saying, "I have to believe that. Otherwise I have to believe some rather nefarious things about some fairly highly placed people in the intelligence community and perhaps elsewhere."

Wilkerson also agreed with the interviewer that Vice President Cheney's frequent trips to the CIA would inevitably have brought "undue influence" on the agency. When asked if Cheney was "the kind of guy who could lean on somebody" he responded, "Absolutely. And be just as quiet and taciturn about it as-- he-- as he leaned on 'em. As he leaned on the Congress recently-- in the-- torture issue."

Wilkerson stood strongly by his earlier description of Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as having formed a cabal to hijack the decision-making process, emphasizing both their determination to ignore the Geneva Conventions and the "inept and incompetent" planning for post-invasion Iraq. And he concluded, "I'm worried and I would rather have the discussion and debate in the process we've designed than I would a dictate from a dumb strongman. . . . I'd prefer to see the squabble of democracy to the efficiency of dictators."

and powell, along with the others should be put to trial in a war crimes Nuremberg type trial setting for war crimes, and if found guilty of the treason that they did, they should be executed. All of them, including Alberto

Well, here is the key G4




This is in fact why we are having hearings!

"Facts" About Eavesdropping
President Bush and his defenders insist that he did not break the law or violate the Constitution by authorizing secret warrantless eavesdropping on telephone calls from suspected terrorists.

At least one think tank disagrees.

The Center for American Progress says the surveillance demonstrates a dangerous disregard for basic American liberties and is a blatant violation of the law. In an article on its website, the liberal think tank lists what it calls six “facts” which debunk the Bush administration’s efforts to justify the eavesdropping.

These “facts” include the assertion that such surveillance would not have prevented the attacks of 9/11. Another “fact” is that eavesdropping without getting a warrant does not speed up the process of wiretapping terrorist suspects. A third “fact,” according to the think tank, is that disclosure of the surveillance program by the New York Times did not undermine national security.

The remaining three “facts,” the Center says, are: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice could not cite a specific statute that gives Bush the authority to order phone taps on American citizens without a warrant; some Congressional intelligence officials were not told about the surveillance program; and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales assured the Senate at his confirmation hearing that the President would not violate the law in combating terrorism.

Well.

What’s wrong with these assertions from the Center for American Progress – other than their simplistic approach, tendentiousness, and irrelevance – is that they are presented without any context.

There is no mention that the United States is locked in an epic war with extremist Islamic terrorists. There is no mention that these terrorists have already killed thousands of Americans in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and hundreds more in other attacks around the world. There is no mention that the terrorists issue almost daily threats to kill as many Americans as they can.

These are also “facts” which require consideration in any serious discussion of surveillance and other American tactics for winning the war.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thinktankt..._about_eav.html

The question is not whether we should protect our country, but that the president exceeded his authority, when he could and should have done so legally.

The law states they have 72 hours to get permission RETROACTIVELY

So what's the problem?

Bush should be tried in a war crimes court, after he is impeached after they finally get an independent prosecutor, and anyone who agrees with Bush in power, should be tried too.

If they don't like the law, they have to enact new laws through Congress

You know for someone who is so concerned with the government riding roughshod over your farm and that of other farmers....I do not understand your condoning the government to run roughshod over your civil liberties.....

I think Gonsalez wrote the lies Hatch is spewing. What an ass kisser he always has been

Why is it he pretends to be anti-Bush but whenever there is a thread like this, his true colors come out???

It can't be a coincidence, can it?

Gore, Dems sound loopy on eavesdropping powers

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

When former Vice President Al Gore on Monday demanded a special counsel to investigate President George W. Bush’s decision to allow warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails between suspected terrorists overseas and their possible confederates within the United States — when he said Bush “repeatedly and persistently” broke the law — Gore neglected to mention a few items.

He forgot to say anything about President Bill Clinton’s authorization for the FBI to search and wiretap the home of suspected spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant. The former vice president also said nothing about Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general under Clinton, testifying before Congress in 1994 that “the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”

Nor did he say anything about the fact that some federal courts, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in 2002, have concluded that presidents have the authority to conduct warrantless searches — not to pursue domestic criminal cases but to obtain foreign intelligence. John Schmidt, associate attorney general under Clinton, wrote about that just last month in acknowledging that Bush was acting within the law.

But perhaps more important than anything else, Gore made only passing reference to the fact that Islamofascist terrorists want nothing more than to murder “infidels” in America and anywhere else in the world. Repeated public statements by their leaders show they have not abandoned that goal since Sept. 11, 2001.

Heck, what Gore and seemingly an ever-increasing number of Democrats in Congress want Americans to believe is that Bush is abusing his presidential authority to the point of ordering national security operatives to eavesdrop on telephone conversations between Barbra Streisand and Michael Moore.

Of course, the president has ordered no such monitoring of domestic telephone calls as — let’s say — former Democratic Attorney General Bobby Kennedy authorized against Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

By Gore’s fractured reasoning, it’s apparently OK for the U.S. government to kill Osama bin Ladin but it’s a constitutional outrage to surreptitiously listen in on a telephone call that bin Ladin might make into the United States. Is it any wonder that public opinion polls show a vast majority of Americans have little faith in the Democratic Party with respect to national security issues?

Any president, not merely George W. Bush, would be derelict in his duty if he didn’t use every legal means within his power to attempt to thwart further terrorist attacks. That’s why the same polls that show Americans distrustful of the Democrats’ ability to protect the nation from a future 9/11 show a majority of Americans support Bush’s efforts to keep track of terrorists through surveillance.

Gore made no bones about seeking to create a political weapon with his demand for a special counsel. “It should be a political issue in any race, regardless of party, section of the country, house of Congress, or anyone who opposes the appointment of a special counsel under these dangerous circumstances when our Constitution is at risk,” he said, according to news accounts.

Oh, please. The Constitution is “at risk” because of warrantless eavesdropping on suspected overseas terrorists? Do Gore and his Democratic counterparts really believe that anyone other than the Barbra Streisand-MoveOn.org crowd is going to buy such hooey?

But Gore is right about one thing. By all means, let it become a political issue. Let the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately decide what really is a legitimate dispute over the separation of powers as contemplated under the U.S. Constitution.

And, in terms of domestic politics, let’s see how many Americans in how many congressional races want to elect candidates who see the president’s actions as a greater threat to Americans’ security than the avowed intentions of Islamofascist terrorists.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/opin/content/new..._Gore_edit.html

In fact Senator DeWine offered to give them more authority under FISA in 2002....and the WH declined saying they had enough power and were not sure if that would lead to legal problems. Of course we know they were already spying on Americans.

Yah, I guess the Constitution is a loopy document too.

the last time you put that bullspit up, you had 100 replies from 50 different people telling you you are spinning lies.

Once again you are full of it

What happened here has nothing to do with that article. It was before the specific law came into effect PRECICELY BECAUSE OF THOSE INCIDENTS

NOW THERE IS A LAW IN PLACE FOR THIS, AND BUSH SHOULD BE TAKEN BEFORE A FIRING SQUAD AND EXECUTED FOR TREASON

Guess that is his mission
To throw off the point of the thread
And he claims to like Gore
Yeah, right...your bias shows again

If I was making phone calls to or from Al Qaeda terrorist I would expect if the Government of the United States was doing it's job not to have an expectation of privacy.

Additionally, if my wife's little flock of chickens proved to be a threat to the National Security of the United States I would not mind them being regulated. The facts are, every single outbreak of animal born disease which threaten either human beings or national food supplies have occurred in agri-business; the very people who cause the problem are the people who will benefit from regulating the small farmer out of business.

Apparently you didn't get past the headline. Try reading a bit further before inserting your foot in your mouth next time.

NO ONE is saying we should not protect our country.....But we also need to protect our Constitution and our laws......there has to be a balance between security and civil liberties. This president is exceeding his authority and overreaching in a power grab for the executive branch that does not allow for congressional oversight. Last I knew we had three branches of government not one.

I never pretended to be anti-Bush G4A. I'm just won't bash Bush at the expense of the USA.

well I might tell you what to do with your comment but it would be unladylike

Ha, seems like any supporter of the Bush spying simply has to hear just any of the three words/phrases, "Al-queda", "9/11" "Terrorists" being uttered, and he/she will flip, fall to his/her knees and worship Bush as his/her Lord above Law. Gosh, what have become of the brains of these vulnerables? It's no wonder that people such as these are so indifferent to cuts in budgets for education! Judging on their personal intelligence, they must think that the Bush Regime must know best what's best for America! Very troubling!

At this rate Al Qaeda will win and provide the firing squad. Doesn't matter to you if Al Qaeda wins does it G4A, just so long as Bush loses.

If you don't like what Marine is posting, just ignore it. Those of us that want to know what's going on appreciate those of you that are live blogging this for us. Please continue, we would appreciate less arguement and more information

Back to the hearings now!! Can someone please re-cap the hearings for those of us at work? Who's testifying, a few bullet points, etc. Thanks!

thank You....I started this thread to talk about the hearings not Marine's disbelief

Perhaps a rational approach is found with Senator Spector...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/politics...artner=homepage

By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
Published: February 5, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 — The Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he believed the Bush administration had violated the law with its warrantless surveillance program and that its legal justifications for the program were "strained and unrealistic."

The program "is in flat violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," said the chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who will open committee hearings on Monday.

But the deputy director of national intelligence, Gen. Michael Hayden of the Air Force, who oversaw the program when he headed the National Security Agency, defended it from assertions that it had cast too broad a net, intercepting the calls of perhaps thousands of innocent Americans, and produced only modest results in pursuit of the Qaeda terror network.

"It's about speed," General Hayden said on ABC. "It's about hot pursuit of Al Qaeda communications."

Senator Specter said that his committee was trying to secure testimony from former Attorney General John Ashcroft and other former Bush administration officials, including some who are said to have questioned the legality of the program in its initial years.

Democrats have urged Mr. Specter to ask the administration to waive executive privilege to allow former officials to testify candidly.

For now, the only administration witness scheduled to appear is Mr. Ashcroft's successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Mr. Gonzales and other administration officials have asserted that a president's inherent powers and the authority for the use of force that Congress granted after Sept. 11, 2001, gave President Bush ample powers to permit eavesdropping without warrants from the special court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Senator Specter said that he would ask Mr. Gonzales to seek the FISA court's own assessment of whether the program is legal.

The senator, who has clashed with the administration before, said that it was clear to him that the law had been violated. The program, he said on NBC, "is in flat violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." But it remained to be seen, Mr. Specter added, whether that statute is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Of Democratic calls to subpoena notes of administration deliberations about the legality of the program, Senator Specter said he would not immediately move to do so. But "if the necessity arises," he added, "I won't be timid."

Mr. Specter's strong language reflects sharp concerns among many in Congress - mainly Democrats, but also some Republicans - over the legality of the program, the administration's decision to circumvent the FISA court rather than ask Congress to change the law, and whether the administration kept Congress adequately informed.

General Hayden, asked about a Washington Post report today that intelligence officers had eavesdropped on thousands of Americans on overseas calls before dismissing "nearly all" of them as potential suspects, said that he was "not quite sure why that would be the metric of success."

He insisted again that the program was carefully focused.

Speaking on the Fox network, General Hayden said the program was aimed only at people for whom there was, if not probable cause, then evidence "in that probable cause range" to believe they had links to Al Qaeda.

But citing the secrecy of the program, the general was circumspect in answering other questions.

Asked whether any of the eight members of Congress who had regularly been briefed on the program had expressed concern or objections - as some say they did - he replied, "I certainly never left the room believing we had to do anything differently."

Last week, the CIA director, Porter Goss, complained that unauthorized disclosures in the news media had harmed national security, but the general was less pointed in his comments today. Asked whether national security had been harmed by The New York Times's disclosure of the warrantless N.S.A. program, - General Hayden said that it would be "very, very difficult for me to answer that."

The Post reported that fewer than 10 American citizens or residents a year had aroused sufficient suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, a further step requiring a warrant from a federal judge.

Vice President Dick Cheney has said the secret program may have saved thousands of American lives, but provided no details.

A Republican senator, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said that the program did not need to snare large numbers of terrorists to prove its worth. "One case of identifying one sleeper cell can mean a matter of life and death," he said on CBS. "It's not academic."
------------------------------------

The case breaks down to me with who is authorizing...can we
trust them...their other statements on national security...their
credibility...and in this case it's the failed credibility that has
committee hearings operational...IMO.

And I can tell you still didn't bother to read the article. Intelligent debate begins with a little knowledge of the subject.

10 minute break

There is no Al Qaeda. What a joke. A big marine scared of a scarecrow

I have read extensive material on the NSA question....and not simply that of pundits.

The break is over.

Grassley is asking questions now

I'm interested in Feingold's questions.....on AG Gonzales's prior testimony

Can Bush choose a better 9/11 representative to speak out to support his spying? Debra Burlingame? There she goes again! She seems to be Bush's favorite 9/11 icon for deceiving the American public as being the representative of the 9/11 victims' families. Hey, she was one of only 3 carefully selected Bush's image of 9/11 - as they spoke out for Bush during the 2004 RNC campaign! That chick doesn't look too chic in her credibility!

http://www.petrifiedtruth.com/archives/001876.html

Grassley just mentioned that LBJ did worse, except he meant Nixon spying on everyone just like Bush is

And then he said the leak by the NYTimes was important, and the Plame leak was not

Ted Kennedy asked the questions before the break, and really layed into the lies Gonzales is telling.

Gonzales was hemming and hawing and rope a doping and trying to get his message out before the time ran out.

Grassley lobbing softballs about the same crap about stopping terrorists yada yada yada

That's a false argument FISA wasn't enacted until 1978.....and it was because of Nixon's enemies list that we have FISA

So then, why was it ok for the Clinton/Gore administration to do something to protect the United States and when Bush/Cheney does something to protect the USA folks start running about flapping their arms and screaming for impeachment?

I don't see a problem with either administration for what they did.

Gonzy is talking about how Washington,Lincoln,Rosevelt did the same, bigger than Bush and Grassley adding on to it
(never mind there wasn't a law then)