Jonathan Turley on MSNBC says "President committed Crime"

[montanacowboy]

On with bubble head Alex Witt, trying her best to protect Chimp - Turley was very vocal, said Chimp indeed did break the law, says he is NOT above the law, it was a great segment

BUT HERE IS THE KICKER BOYS AND GIRLS - GET READY FOR THIS SPIN; THE PRESIDENT CONSULTED WITH BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WHEN HE DECIDED ON HIS LITTLE ILLEGAL SPY MISSION, AND THE DEMOCRATS KNEW ABOUT IT AND SAID NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG, HERE WE GO AGAIN THAT IS HOW THEY PLAY IT, BOTH SIDES KNEW SO THE PRESIDENT IS EXONERATED

IF THIS IS NOT GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT NOTHING EVER WILL BE

[Horse with no Name]

1. Great spin

Only the Democrats are saying that they weren't told any particulars.

[marylanddem]

4. I guess the critical question is: what did the Dem leaders know?

Did they know that Bush wasn't going before a court to get these wiretaps? I hope to hell
they didn't...that, to me, would be the only way they could cover their asses for culpability...

[azureblue]

14. what were they told?

ala "they were given the same information.."
Dmes were probably told, "oh yeah, we're checking into a few people"

[capi888]

6. Harry Reid said they were told only

a couple months ago and it had been going on since 911. Pelosi also. They were trying to cover their Ass, and didn't give specifics on the particulars...Whats NEW.....Dems only told when fear their incompetence will be coming out...then they can blame the Dems too....

[Walt Starr]

2. If anybody was told, it was only the Republicans

Bush never tells Democrats a thing, NEVER!

[Walt Starr]

3. Got error, so posting here so I have this in My Posts n/t

[Horse with no Name]

5. And if he did

It was Lieberman.
That doesn't count.

[Rocknrule]

8. Yes he does

He confides in Joe Lieberman alot. But then, he's not a real Democrat

[KoKo]

7. Thanks for the heads up on what Turley said. Good to know. n/t

[bahrbearian]

9. Lieberman is not a democrate.

[Ready4Change]

10. Confusing tools of blackmail for innocence.

Perhaps some Dems knew. If so, I'm certain that fact was used to keep those Dems quiet about this. That's blackmail, and often seems to work.

However, just because it works doesn't mean it's a legal defense. "He's guilty too" does NOTHING to diminish ones own guilt.

[C_U_L8R]

11. Telling congress

that you intend to commit a crime does not mean
you have pemission to commit a crime.

Beside.... notifying congress has nothing to do with this at all.
Bush broke the law by not involving the courts and
getting the proper subpoena's, etc...

It's the rule of law and Bush does not seem
to repect it. He must be impeached for breaking
the law or precedent will be set that any president
can break any law the choose.

And glorious thing is... the republicans are
backed into a corner where they HAVE TO impeach.
(well they don't have to.. but if they don't, they
pretty much appoint Bush dictator for life)
Oh geez.. they just might

[spanone]

12. Wait a minute. Even if the dems knew, laws were STILL broken.

I say indict the democrats who knew and didn't protest or rat these fuckers out. I don't care if ALL the democrats knew, it still does not make it right.

[shraby]

13. Even if the Dems knew, it was classified and

they would have lost their ability to view classified material immediately if they had said anything.

[marylanddem]

15. Amen. Well said. nt

[azureblue]

16. yep

"the Dems knew" is another distraction. So typical of Bush when he gets into trouble.

[babylonsister]

17. Bob Graham, chair of Intel committee in '02, wasn't informed:

From Knight-Ridder:


snip

Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002, said he wasn't informed of the domestic surveillance program. In an interview, Graham recalled a 2002 meeting in Vice President Dick Cheney's office about a far more narrow plan by the National Security Agency to intercept communications from outside the United States to other foreign destinations that rely on U.S. satellite links.

"What the administration did was not justified," Graham said. "You don't fight terrorism by taking away the constitutional liberties of U.S. citizens. ... I never saw a situation of extreme urgency that would warrant this."




snip

Government officials told the newspaper that government eavesdroppers sought court-approved warrants only for conversations within the United States, not for overseas calls. The paper reported that "hundreds, perhaps thousands of people inside the United States" have been targeted for monitoring over the past three years.

"The president has, in effect, created an off-the-books surveillance procedure without any legislative authority," said Marc Rotenberg, a law professor at Georgetown University and executive director of the Electronic Security Information Center, a civil liberties group. "The president has claimed an extraordinary power, the right to conduct surveillance without judicial review. He is in a place where no president has been before."


snip

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13426057.htm