Comments on: The Ghorbanifar Meetings Timeline

By: PetePierce

PetePierce — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:21:41 +0000

I sure agree with you wholeheartedly on the expert opining on issues of law issue, and I’ve been out of pocket all day and didn’t get to even skim that opinion.

I noticed that Move On is appropriately trying to hold Obama’s feet to the fire as to a fillibuster in the Senate, just as Loo Hoo made the point last week.

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:45:47 +0000

News release from the U.S. Dept of Justice on the Rosen/Weissman
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=.....#038;gl=us

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:40:35 +0000

Larger copy of Larry Franklin indictment.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....ug2005.htm

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:36:36 +0000

Who forged the Niger Documents?
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21704/

Where is Micheal Rubin?

The charade that Rice was one of the first to try and negotiate with Iran is a real charade.

http://article.nationalreview......BmZmFiYWY=

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:29:15 +0000

Still nothing in the MSM about the U.S. vs Rosen case. Just the way the I-lobby like it.

Invasion of Iraq, outing of Plame, U.S. vs. Rosen…”connected at the roots”

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:26:05 +0000

Great piece Ew incredible timeline.

Ledeen “I learned about it in the papers”

Hold them ACCOUNTABLE

“Faster Please”

By: klynn

klynn — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:05:55 +0000

I think that list was compiled by applying the context of the “Law of Return” and the laws in the US on Dual Citizenship.

Here is info on the Law of Return:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

Here on US dual citizenship. It does mention that one can gain a security clearance while holding dual citizenship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship

As for vetting…who can? Someone could easily keep their alliance to a specific country secret while infiltrating and/or controlling the other as an apparent “loyal” citizen.

By: klynn

klynn — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:03:53 +0000

That’s why I said I had no validation on any information in the comments at that link.

Would like to vet that information…seems worth exploring…

If it’s so, wow, what a cell…

After all, there can be crazy stuff out there on the net…

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:06:16 +0000

I blew through the Safavian opinion too fast to say this with a any particular degree of confidence; but, although not overly compelling, I can see the CCA holding that Safavian should have been allowed to call an expert. The modern standards for expert opinion admissibility is fairly thin, much more so than most would expect. That said, I am still not a fan of experts opining on what the law is, and unless Safavian’s proffered expert had substantial experience in the Federal government determining this exact point, which I don’t recall (possible I missed such an indication, but I don’t think so) then I don’t think he was competent to testify. Other than that part of the opinion, it sure looked to me as if the appellate judges were impermissibly going behind the jury’s verdict on factual findings. Overall a pretty questionable decision, but maybe just slightly better that you indicate. Not much better though.

By: PetePierce

PetePierce — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:36:24 +0000

OT but we’re a day later and I noticed that several of the largest newspapers in the country gave the FISA disaster one single paragraph saying it passed and Bush was in favor of it.

From Glenn: Time Magazine uncritically prints Nancy Pelosi’s “justifications” for the FISA “compromise”

Article Glenn Praises: Behind the Compromise on Spying