Specter and the Washington Post

Friday afternoon - through a NYQUIL haze and battling a cold - I heard a quick blurb by Wolf Blitzer (Situation room) that Specter has his boxers in a bunch over some article in the Washington Post.

Wolf said he would be talking to Specter about this on Sunday.

anyone have more on this? What article?

General gist-

Cafferty mentioned that although Specter had promised to investigate illegal wiretapping, he had made some back room agreement with Cheney to write (I think) "amnesty" for anyone involved into any new law. Specter contacted Blitzer during the show to say this was not true.

Wish I could remember where I read it yesterday, but it was reported that Cheney met with Specter to work out the new rules for wiretapping without a warrant.

I wonder what the meeting was about, then.

he didn't make an amnesty deal?

seems fishy to me, but not surprising considering how many backdoor manipulations go on with this administration.

all I heard on CNN was that specter was objecting to the article - if he's objecting so much why didn't he get out in front of the cameras right away?

there's more to this than meets the eye -- par for the course

I think anyway:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060801992.html

"Another part of the Specter bill would grant blanket amnesty to anyone who authorized warrantless surveillance under presidential authority, a provision that seems to ensure that no one would be held criminally liable if the current program is found illegal under present law.

A third provision would consolidate the 29 cases that have been filed in various federal district courts challenging the legality of the NSA program and give jurisdiction over them to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which was established by FISA. Any decision of that court would be subject to Supreme Court review and otherwise would be binding on all other courts."

They just, plain and simply, aren't going to go by the rules. This "compromise" with Cheney is so "in your face" it is incredible.

While I don't think it is impossible for him to be spineless, I don't think it is possible for him to be spineless that many times.

I am beginning to wonder if they have paid off reporter to publish stories. We have Andrew Taylor doing a hit piece on us and another guy from the AP (his name I cannot remember at this time) and we have someone feeding this WashPo person bad info.

We know from Jeff "Top" Gannon, the NIE declassification, the Valerie Plame affair, the tracking of reporter's calls, and even the tracking of reporter's calls in the Barry Bonds steroid leak. They use the press, and not like any other administration. Oh yeah, remember when Iraq was just a problem with the reporters covering it, but that there was good news? BS, all of it.

Recently there have been two very scary developments: Hastert being under "investigation" when in reality he isn't, and Specter flip-flopping, when it was really Orin "I am the biggest tool ever, and not in that way" Hatch, who had made a deal with the WH.

I'd say we should protest outside his office if he eventually let's us down (remember he still is a REPUBLICAN for Christ sake), but until the legislation leaves Congress, I will not be a pawn of the WH in destroying Specter.

This guy is really out on a limb already, I don't know if he could backtrack. I think he is in this fight for good, well for as long as he lives.

If he didn't actually care, he would not have had hearings or anything else because that is exactly what the President would have wanted.

Like I said hope and wait and see.

rather than what he says he`ll do, like crowing about a big investigation, then refusing to swear in the people he`s questioning. If he was truly interested in getting to the bottom of this warrantless wiretapping, he wouldn`t be meeting with Cheney behind the scenes. He`d be demanding answers for real. Too many members of Congress work for their party instead of the people.

You don't have to swear someone in. There is a law, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which allows someone to be prosecuted for making false statements to Congress, even if they aren't under oath. The punishment is even the same as the perjury law. I personally don't know why they ever swear someone in. It simply isn't needed. I guess they do it for tradition.

Here is 18 U.S.C. 1001:
Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Here is the regular perjury law:
Perjury generally

Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

See how they are the same? Specter was just trying to keep the AG from having to raise his right hand and to stop the photos that would come from that. But at least he wasn't lying about the laws being the same for perjury and false statements before Congress.