Hoekstra’s Office: He’s Seen Documents That Prove Pelosi Was Briefed On Waterboarding

Source: The Plum Line

Hoekstra’s Office: He’s Seen Documents That Prove Pelosi Was Briefed On Waterboarding

GOP Rep. Pete Hoekstra is upping the stakes of the torture fight in response to Nancy Pelosi’s claims that she wasn’t briefed on the use of waterboarding.

His office tells me that he’s seen documents that will prove this isn’t true.

Hoekstra spokesperson Jamal Ware says that Hoekstra is now seeking the release of the memos and notes that comprised the basis of the documents that came out today that claimed Dems had been briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques.

“He has seen documents that would clarify exactly what the Speaker was briefed on,” Ware tells me, “including whether she was briefed on all enhanced interrogation techniques that had been used.”

Asked if those techniques included waterboarding, Ware replied: “Yes.”

Read more: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/hoekstras-office-hes-seen-documents-that-prove-pelosi-was-briefed-on-waterboarding/

gotta love those Repuke talking points getting swallowed up by "Dems"

not briefed on the past use of waterboarding.

edit to add quote-

“(They) did not tell us they were using that,” she said. “Flat out. And any — any contention to the contrary is simply not true.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pelosi_denies_prior_knowledge_of_waterboarding_0423.html

It would have been treason if she spoke to anyone that did not have clearance. The Republican are trying hard to put this back on the Democrats

How do you think the previous administration defined "treason"? Do you know? because I surely do not.

Only the Congress can hold Ms Pelosi accountable for anything whatsoever that she may say as part of the function of Congress as the sovereign deliberative body of the USA.

all I know is that congressinal immunity does not apply to what may be defined as treason. I have no ide who would make the determination but I am prety sure it would be far from black & white.

See this sub-thread for a discussion of the Congress' immunity in carrying out it's legislative duty of debate on the law:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5617736&mesg_id=5620351

Or, torture wasn't a big deal, just like Limpballs slapping himself? Which one is it? They have to own up to the definition first.

It's very hard for repukes to pin this on Pelosi if they keep changing their tune.

if it wasn't such a big deal. The response to Pelosi being briefed on this (maybe) depends on their take on the larger issue.

If they say it wasn't a big deal, then the response would be 'so it wasn't a big deal, why are your panties in a bunch that Pelosi may have known about it?'

If they say that we didn't torture, the whole thing is moot.

If they say that torture worked, their charges against her are ridiculous.

who do we lose on both sides of the aisle?

oversight by failing to investigate when there was no question that an investigation was in order?

I think so. Do they get jailed for that? No. Should they get primaried? I think so.

WHO SAID IT WAS OKAY?

That Pelosi knew about it and didn't say anything? OK, then that is supposed to make it OK?

Apparently "we shouldn't release classified documents" wasn't working for him either

So, if she goes down, he goes down. Mexican standoff.

Republican with principles (oxymoron though that may be), I might decide that I could not, in good conscience vote Republican if Republicans torture, or if Republicans (fill in the blank).

By showing a Democrat did it, too, did it first, knew about it, or whatever, they take away a reason to change your vote. Hence, "Clinton did it, too--and before Bushco did" and "Congress knew all about it all the while."

Or with Congress's failing to perform its duty to serve as check and balance on the Presidency, and its duty to preserve and defend the Constitution ?

So, what entitles Pelosi to a private jet and a salary at taxpayer expense? Is her only function to please lobbyists and enable lawlessness from the Executive Branch?

It isn't like she was asked if it was legal. EVERYONE knew, including the public. They all knew the CIA had secret prisons all over the place. It was outed very early on. The only reason they would have places on foreign soil is to do something that is illegal on American soil. For the pukes to somehow try and blame Pelosi because she didn't do anything about it is laughable.

the rule of law and to a government of checks and balances. If it isn't about that, why even care whether a Democrat or a Republican wins an office?

"One lies and the other swars to it" was my friend's saying. If R lies and D swears to it, what is the big difference between them?

They were informed and threatened with prosecution if they even revealed that the meeting took place.

the famous gang of eight. Difficult to keep track, I know...

Hoekstra is one of the worst snakes in the GOP, but I believe him. Anything to be rid of Pointless Pelosi.

this is a charming distraction from those who were in charge -- those who carried it out, etc.

United States, including the Constitution, treaties to which the United States is a party and statutes passed by Congress. Both when in the minority and when Speaker of the House and third in line for the Presidency, she failed to do her duty. She is still failing.

Other reports say this was based on "recollections" of what, when and who was briefed. At best this is a he said/she said war of words. CIA documents have been destroyed that could provide the clarity. Frankly, I don't trust the CYA "recollections" one bit.

many provisions of the Constitution? Were you ever briefed, or did you simply stay informed on what was public knowledge?

If you were in Congress, would you at least have put that stuff on the record so that the American people would know exactly who and what they were voting on? Would you have commenced an investigation? Would you have commenced impeachment proceedings, whether you were in the minority or not? Would you have commenced impeachment once you became Speaker of the House?


I knew and I would have, even though impeachment might hurt me and Democrats in the next election as it did Gingrich and the Republicans.

likely it is that we will have a special prosecutor -- and prosecutions at least of the torture that occurred before the memos were written.

thusly

... Pelosi is travelling in the Middle East today ...
Hoekstra wants briefing notes declassified
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=39854

He is running for Gov. of Michigan, and if
I were him, I wouldn't be dragging my name
into ANYTHING to DO with torture at this
point.

BUT, he's a repug, so whatever.....

already?

So far, all we have are rightwingnuts saying that Pelosi is lying. So what else is new?

the Constitution, treaties to which the United States was a party and statutes of Congress MIGHT be being violated and certainly that they had been violated in Abu Ghraib.

Which investigations and hearings did she commence? And, as Congresswoman and,later, Speaker of the House, when did she look into whether commencing impeachment proceedings might be her duty, under her oath to preserve and defend the laws of the U.S. and under the system of checks and balances that our government is SUPPOSED to be?

Congress was supposed to be the strongest branch, and to protect us against a "unitary executive" aka dictator. Did ongress protect us? No. Did it preserve and defend the rule of law? No.

I blame Bushco for doing what they did and I blame Congress for failing to do it duty, for enabling a dictator and the shredding of our Constitution. I think the lot of them should get primaried, with maybe a handful of exceptions. Madame Speaker and Table Cleaner in Chief first.

briefings, since they were classified.

The only thing I object to is that she apparently did not object to the torture methods, regardless whether they had already been done or would be done in the future.

But to put it all on her shoulders is unfair. She wasn't the only Dem. in those briefings. She was present at only one of those meetings. Hillary Clinton didn't even go into the classified room to read the information on the facts leading up to the Iraq War, before she voted to authorize the war.

It's Bushco mainly to blame (the White House and the CIA). Secondarily, Congress.

But not about Abu Ghraib. As you may recall, Congress DID hold hearings on Abu Ghraib and torture. Remember? You watch CSPAN? It was because Rumsfeld identified the soldier who reported the Abu Ghraib incidents that his life was changed forever...in his town, the guy rec'd death threats and told basically to leave town. I saw one of the "respected" townsmen on TV, saying just about that. So they did hold hearings on that. Wish I had taped it. Would be interesting to see if Pelosi asked any questions, but I guess she wouldn't, if she weren't on that committee. I remember that Hillary Clinton did..she was on that committee.

She sucks in general. Primary her. But the ultimate guilt lies at the feet of Bush and Cheney an co.

is a Congresswoman, a public servant and also the fact that she took an oath. The authority to try comes from those same things, and her ability to request impeachment proceedings. And she could have tried to rally the public, as did Kucinich. If enough of them had raised enough of a hue and cry--as it was their duty to do--this nightmare may have ended in January 2005. Instead, they all enabled it.

Who cares? I do. A lot of here do.

This is beyond partisanship. Bushco were the criminals and the rest were the enablers.

I am not making excuses for her. Actually I can't stand her. But many here that think she would have been able to do much are kidding themselves imo. She would have been seen as a total loony. The media was complicit, they would have portrayed her as an enemy. Many in the "public" allowed Bush to be reelected in 2004 knowing he and other lied about the WMD's. I really don't believe many would have listened to her. I do think she said nothing not because she agreed with torture but because she wanted to hold onto her job and not look bad in the public. She is basically worthless as a leader of the Dem party as is Harry Reid.