digg

The IGs can also investigate WH relationships with their agencies – it’s not so much a jurisdictional bar against being able to investigate the WH that prompted the response on not being able to give preservation orders – it’s an alignment issue. The directives/orders to preserve are the responsiblity of the lawyers representing the parties against whom claims are being made. If Reyes wanted preservation, he should have told WH Counsel or Mukasey to issue that, or the Gen Counsels for the agencies, or the gen counsels or outside counsels for the telecoms.

And its almost flat silly to ask for it now. There should have been, prior to Obama palming the precious for himself, a requirement for reps and warranties, with independent consequences for default, from ALL INVOLVED ENTITIES (including the telecoms) as to the fact that no docs were destroyed, preservation notices were out, the content of those notices, the procedures for compliance, etc. with attestations by the chief officers for the various entities (including Bush for the WH) and lawyers outlining their due diligence re: client compliance. All that at the time, so you had “teeth” (ok, they already pulled all the teeth, but maybe you’d at least have gums) later when the inevitable breaches by the liars and their lying lawyers begin to pile up.

You don’t do the deal, the go back and say “hey, uh, ummmmm, now that I’ve thought about it, ya know, I really think I should have bought a house with a pool, so I think since you sold me one without a pool you should come back and build me a pool now”

And whether you have an IG or independent commission, without having forced telecom compliance via agreements tendered with the amnesty deal, there’s no way to get them to have to really ante up. If there are lawsuits and appeals on the constitutionality of the amnesty, they aren’t going to be able to be forced to tender inculpatory evidence and they won’t. The time to get the leverage in the deal was when it was being done.

Now the only real viable tool is going to be the litigation. And btw, Obama is likely to be the one heading the DOJ’s fight against revealing any of the Bush criminality and don’t think he won’t. I’m glad so many are so excited over him, but he’s no much on the leadership front. When he actually held his Senate seat, he was fast to say in 2004 that his war views had somehow suddenly become about the same as Bush’s; when he needed Feingold and to win the WI primary he said some pretty words, but after he had what he wanted he sold Feingold down the river and had Dem party already agreeing not to whip against amnesty and all lined up to crater all the lawsuits from the git-go.

He’s the only viable alternative now to McCain, but EPU’s piece awhile back on the lizards plays in my mind a lot. Obama becoming President is going to do for us about what the Dems getting the majority in 2006 did, or the Dems having a comfortable filibuster size minority did in 2001-2006. He’ll have better domestic economic policies, but watching him fit them in with his grandiose ideas on growing the military will be *interesting* to say the least.

I’m glad a lot of people I think well of are so excited and happy over Obama’s poll gains, and when I get hit up by all my wavering Republican or Republican leaning friends in IN and KY, I do a sales pitch – and when I get involved in the “he’s a socialist who is going to raise taxes 15%” tirades I correct them — but I can’t pretend my heart’s in it. I hope I’m wrong, but really at this point, what you have to hope for, if the litigation gets shut down, isn’t for an independent commission, where Obama may feel compelled to dig in and fight for overwhelming Presidential power he has been showing he believes in, but rather that he will voluntarily choose to be on the side of the angels.

Someone may want to ask Alan Greenspan for a prognostication on how well that works – unchecked power guided by self interest.

When Bamford brought up Israeli spying in and on the U.S. and Carl Camerons four part series about Israeli owned telecommunication and datamining companies and their access to communication systems here in the states, Terri quickly brushed this issue aside during the interview. That four part series on these telecommunication companies was aired on Fox soon after 9/11 (Fox was forced to take this series off of their website)

Have you heard any other interviews with Bamford anywhere else besides C-Span and Fresh Air?

Carl Cameron’s four part series
http://www.informationclearing…..le7545.htm

jebus

they gotta announce that the stock market WILL open ???

that can’t be good

There’s a reason why the phrase “too good to be true” was invented.

When I was in the securities regulation business, we had a name for the investors Greenspan described in his testimony: yield hogs. High interest blinds people to the reasons interest is high, it means lots of risk.