BUSHCO CAUGHT! Evidence-They KNEW Wiretapping Was ILLEGAL & Judge Walker Has PROOF!

[kpete]

Look at this sentence.
http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files//2009/01/090104-walkercharityruling.pdf

Soon after the blocking of plaintiff Al-Haramain Oregon’s assets on February 19, 2004, plaintiff Belew spoke by telephone with Soliman al-Buthi (alleged to be one of Al-Haramain Oregon’s directors) on the following dates: March 10, 11 and 25, April 16, May 13, 22 and 26, and June 1, 2 and 10, 2004.

Hahahahahahaha!!!

On March 11, 2004, remember, the warrantless wiretap program was operating without the approval of the Acting Attorney General. After Jim Comey refused to recertify the program on March 9, after Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales tried to get John Ashcroft to overrule Comey from his ICU bed on March 10, Bush reauthorized the program using only the legal sanction of then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales on March 11.

Thus, even if the rest of the program were somehow deemed legal (which it wouldn't be, because it violated FISA, which is the question at hand), it would be not be deemed legal on March 11, 2004, because the program didn't have sanction from the Attorney General.

Al-Haramain has reason to believe, you see, that one of the conversations wiretapped was tapped on the day they know the program was illegal under any interpretation of the law. And, if I'm guessing correctly on why they honed in on these conversations, Judge Walker will have proof to that fact in two weeks time.

more at:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/06/the-al-haramain-dates/#more-3328

[wildbilln864]

1. TTGPWY!!

Thank you, thank you. :yourock: I hope this has legs but hell, we all know Bush and Cheney are criminals and nobody's going to do shit about it. :banghead:

[ShortnFiery]

2. It doesn't matter because Nixon was right: "When the President does it, it's not illegal" eom

[samplegirl]

4. Yep.................Cheney confirmed it last week

[MADem]

3. Not to be a downer, but do we know to a certainty that they didn't have a warrant for March?

Also, who were they tapping? Were they tapping the guy in DC, or the guy in SAUDI ARABIA...and the DC dude got caught in that tap?

Just playing devil's advocate, here. Don't shoot me for asking.

[kpete]

5. check out emptywheels XLNT research on all this

UPDATE I

Hahahahahahaha!!!EMPTYWHEEL EXPLAINS


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/05/vaughn-walker-will-review-the-al-haramain-document/

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/05/oops-they-pissed-off-judge-walker-before-he-finalizes-immunity/


The al-Haramain Dates
By: emptywheel Tuesday January 6, 2009 6:30 am

Before you read this post, go read this post and this post for background about Judge Vaughn Walker's order yesterday that the government must give him a document accidentally given to al-Haramain years ago that the Muslim charity claims proves they were wiretapped using the illegal wiretap program. Those posts explain that Walker will finally assess the warrantless wiretap program itself to determine whether it violated FISA. The second post goes on to suggest that this decision will likely impact Walker's pending decision on whether or not the retroactive immunity passed by Congress is legal.

In this post I'm going to wallow in some delightful weeds, because they show that al-Haramain is going after Bush personally.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/06/the-al-haramain-dates/

[MADem]

6. My question is still germane, though

On Monday, Walker ruled: "To be more specific, the court will review the sealed document ex parte and in camera. The court will then issue an order regarding whether plaintiffs may proceed — that is, whether the sealed document establishes that plaintiffs were subject to electronic surveillance not authorized by FISA."



Just supposing that the covert types gin up a document that says the tap occurred OFFSHORE. Maybe our pals the Saudis did it, and shared the intel with us? That tap would not be problematic for us, FISA or no FISA.

In that case, the guy has no case.

I don't know this, not by any stretch.

I'm just arguing an unanticipated but plausible scenario to stimulate discussion.

[Winterblues]

7. As Cheney says, if they had done something illegal they would have been charged.

Since no one has officially charged them with any crime or suggested Impeachment it means they did nothing wrong..Hard to argue with that logic...

[TygrBright]

8. And this will make a difference, how?

There's never been any shortage of smoking guns, incontrovertible evidence, blatant confirmation of outrageously unconstitutional and/or illegal actions on the part of the * Administration and its various henchfolk.

One more item will do.... what?

cynically,
Bright

[rhett o rick]

9. My sentiments exactly. nm

[bluesmail]

10. Busted, and I hope I didn't jinx the prosecutions for misuse of law. aka

The Constitution.