So what's going on with Rockefeller did you teller? Plenty.Flashback - March 6th, Daniel Clark wrote:
"The American Spectator reports in its "Washington Prowler" section that a federal investigation into the NSA leak is focusing on the staffs of Senators Durbin and Rockefeller. That probe reportedly also encompasses the story, leaked to the Washington Post, of secret overseas prisons, where high-level al-Qaida figures are believed to be held.
If Rockefeller is directly implicated in these leaks, not only would it be unsurprising, but it would fit into his already established pattern of behavior. This is the same Jay Rockefeller who, last November, told Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9-11."
That was only his opinion, of course, but how must the Baathists in Damascus have taken it, when a member of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee went galloping through the desert like the Paul Revere of Arabia, shouting "The Yankees are coming, The Yankees are coming"?
I've gotten more than just a few emails and inquiries into "What is happening with Rockefeller? I though he was going down?"
First, patience. You can't bring a US Senator - much less two - down on charges of sedition and treason without a truly iron clad case. We learned this with Clinton who should have been tried on several serious crimes, but because of missteps on the part of Starr and his team we were left with whether or not he lied about sex. The federal proscecutors who are looking at Rockefeller, Durbin and others (yes, at least two others), are not going to let that repeat.
Word: A charge of sedition against Rockefeller is "doable" at this time in reference to his self admitted trip in 2002 to the Middle East.
To wit:
"No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."
So it may be clear, here is a take on the significance of his actions:
"Senator Rockefeller was at the time of his trip, less than four months after 9/11, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which means he was entrusted with "sensitive secured information" as relates existing intelligence regarding Iraq WMD, ongoing intelligence operations looking into Iraq’s WMD program and America’s national security plans concerning the ongoing threat.
Syria was then and remains today on the State Departments list of terror regimes, clearly defined for some years as an enemy to America itself. But Syria was also a close ally to the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, the very subject of the information Senator Rockefeller chose to share with Hussein’s allies in Syria.
In the weeks that followed Senator Rockefellers’ friendly visit with Syria, CIA operatives began reporting Iraqi convoys traveling across the Syrian border; - a suspected "outsourcing" of Iraq’s WMD, which became the centerpiece of Colin Powell’s case against Iraq before the UN. Those same WMD that would later go missing by the time America entered Iraq 12 months later.
What were Senator Rockefeller’s "intentions" in his visit with three Arab Middle Eastern states four months after 9/11, carrying with him and divulging "national security information" concerning America’s intelligence and related policy towards Iraq? Was his trip an "overt act", and did his trip include a "violation of trust or allegiance" to the United States? Did the information he carried to known U.S. enemies, known allies of the Hussein regime, provide "aid or comfort" to America’s enemies?"
The basis for prosecution at this point is said to be under Title 18, section 953 of the Logan Act which reads:
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Again, serious charges - and not to be taken lightly, but this investigation into his trip has been on since the day after his Fox News appearance and the case is looking good at this point.
More to come...
UPDATE: If I were Durbin, I'd choose to remain silent.
Per reader Ordi, more here: "On the Senate side, Sen. Harry Reid and his chairman of the DSCC, Sen. Chuck Schumer, continue to press the anti-war rhetoric as key to their success. On Thursday afternoon, Reid took heat from some members for his soft response to Republicans who called Democrat bluffs on a censure vote against President Bush for the NSA overseas terrorist monitoring program.
According to sources with knowledge of the closed-door meeting, Reid pushed back on his colleagues, telling them that it wasn't a good idea to vote to censure anyone with ties to the NSA program, particularly since there was a criminal investigation underway to determine who had leaked the NSA program's specifics, and that investigation could enmesh one or more of their own."
And there is more to come, developments in progress.....stay tuned.
iraq Politics News bush war on terror spying patriot act nsa CIA
Subscribe by Email
Follow Updates Articles from This Blog via Email
No Comments