Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton illegally wire tapped?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Maine-ah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 03:55 PM
Original message
Clinton illegally wire tapped?
Help. Someone keeps throwing this at me, and I have no idea if it's true or not. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RobertSeattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's already been debunked.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-gorelick-myth/

The Gorelick Myth
In the National Review, Byron York has an article called “Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches.” In it, he cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony where she argues “the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” (This afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) quoted her testimony on the Senate floor.)

Here is what York obscures: at the time of Gorelick’s testimony, physical searches weren’t covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches weren’t covered by FISA. They weren’t. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.

York claims that, after the law was amended, “the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.” That’s false. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority” allowed him to ignore FISA. (We’ve posted the full text of Gorelick’s testimony here).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. In orther words:
Clinton acted within the law to insure our safty and safeguard our rights.

Bush has acted in opposition to the law for his own political purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. It puts you on the defense
Its a common tactic. They are good at it if you allow them to frame the debate. I dont. Its a way to confuse the situation and cloud up the issue. Bush broke the law. Impeach the traitor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevinbgoode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. Isn't it always Clinton's fault?
These people have absolutely no sense of ethics, morals, or shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. Do you mean he authorized wiretaps, or that he WAS tapped?
And if the latter, was it Bill or Hill who was tapped?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine-ah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. as in he was tapping
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. Why not?
Edited on Tue Dec-20-05 03:58 PM by tasteblind
I'm sure everyone is. This would explain all the nicey-nice with Bush and his Dad. They probably have Clinton's little black book all figured out.

Edit: Oh, you meant did he authorize illegal wiretaps. Even if he did, does that make Bush's doing it right? Ask the Freeper if two wrongs makes a right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Make them PROVE it.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Yep, that's the standard response
"Prove it." What is your adversary talking about? The Echelon program? Is your adversary aware of George Tenet's testimony (yes, the same George Tenet awarded the Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush) in April 2000 about the Echelon program? If not, then your adversary doesn't know what he or she is talking about. A shocker, I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. Tell them this:
If he did do this (which I doubt) it is no excuse. The law is the law is the law.

The "just because the other Presidents are doing it" reason is no excuse.

If Clinton did it, let them share a jail cell.

Listening in without a warrant isn't just impolite - it's a felony.

www.brainshrub.com/president-wiretap

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluzmann57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. Is it even relevant to this president?
Edited on Tue Dec-20-05 04:01 PM by Bluzmann57
Clinton hasn't been president since 2001 so what is the point? He also got impeached, although not for illegal wiretaps, obviously.

When I was a child, and when my kids were little, there was always the case of so and so is doing it, to which parents reply, "If so and so jumped off a roof, will you do it too?" I'm trying to say that that the statement "Clinton did it" is just plain childish. They need to grow up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. I agree. I'm so sick and tired of these repukes
arguing that "Clinton did it!" Note: They'll say this whether Clinton did or not!

I always like to say, "So waht! Clinton's not the President anymore. We're talking about *" You have to keep moving the focus back to *, or these pigs will drag out shit that Clinton's mother has supposedly done, stuff that Chelsea has supposedly done, dumps that Bill's dog Buddy supossedly tok, blah, blah, blah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. I think it should read
Clintons administration was illegally wired trapped. Thank you Lynda Trip and all other Rethugs for showing you don't respect the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Exactly. Linda Tripp was an illegal wire tapper.
Clinton was a victim of an illegal wire tapper.

The Repugs were so intent on finding out what was going on in Clinton's trousers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
12. sure he was
and the Titanic, the Linbergh baby kidnapping, and muggy nights when you can't sleep
are his fault too.

When they drop Clinton just figure it is like the old movie when somebody ran out of
bullets they would throw the gun @ the other guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. Well, Not According To Peter King
He said, on national television, that if Clinton had done something like this, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

So the repubs are saying "Well, Clinton wiretapped, but he didn't, because if he did then 9/11 wouldn't have happened, but it did, because he didn't wiretap, even though he did."
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
14. Yeah so... and Nixon wiretapped too
It was illegal then .. just as it is illegal now.
Nothing has changed.. just a new crook in town.

good god ... are the freeps really this ignorant...
they sound like whiney child complaining that all
the other kids get away with WHATEVER.

Hey Freeps....BUSH BROKE THE LAW.
It IS that simple and there is no justification for it.

He WILL go to jail for this

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
15. Its false, but so what?
"Clinton did it" is not a valid legal defense. If your freeper friends think it is I suggest that they try it on a judge the next time they get bagged for DWI (driving while an idiot.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine-ah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
18. great thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chabs39 Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
19. meh
meh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FearofFutility Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
20. I would say to him or her
"If that's true, why did they go after him for lying about a BJ? Illegal wiretapping seems a lot more troublesome to me."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC