CREW: Dept. of Justice must investigate Rep. John Boehner for possibly leaking classified info.
Today, CREW filed a complaint with the Department of Justice asking that the Counterespionage Section of the National Security Division initiate an investigation into whether House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-OH) violated the law by leaking classified information. Our complaint can be found here.
In a July 31, 2007 interview with Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto, Rep. Boehner disclosed an aspect of a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court’s decision regarding warrantless wiretapping:
There's been a ruling, over the last four or five months, that prohibits the ability of our intelligence services and our counterintelligence people from listening in to two terrorists in other parts of the world where the communication could come through the United States.
By telling a reporter that a FISA court has restricted the U.S. intelligence community's surveillance of suspected terrorists overseas, Rep. Boehner appears to have transmitted information relating to the national defense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d).
18 U.S.C. § 793(d) provides that anyone with lawful possession of information relating to the national defense, which could be used to the injury of the United States, who willfully communicates that information to any person not entitled to receive it, is subject to up to ten years imprisonment.
Rep. Boehner apparently made his remarks to Mr. Cavuto in an effort to blame Democrats for failing to pass legislation overriding the court's decision:
The Democrats have known about this for months. We have had private conversations, we have had public conversations that this needs to be fixed. And Republicans are not going to leave this week until this problem is addressed.
Boehner has previously expressed strong concerns over illegal leaks for political gain. In discussing a long-running court case regarding an illegally intercepted phone call that Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) released to the media, Rep. Boehner stated:
When you break the law in pursuit of a political opponent, you’ve gone too far. Members of Congress have a responsibility not only to obey the laws of the country and the rules of our institution, but also to defend the integrity of those laws and rules when they are violated.
When CREW filed the complaint, Melanie Sloan made this statement:
By revealing classified information, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives appears to have compromised national security for partisan political gain. We urge the Justice Department to immediately commence an investigation.
Stay tuned.
Not the same
There is nothing here which repeats the specifics so egregiously uttered by Boehner.
Do You Fell Lucky ?
Nation Security reduced to the luck of the draw.
Our understanding is that some FISA judges have been open to expediting warrants, as well as granting retroactive approval. But there are 11 judges in the FISA rotation, and some of them have been demanding that intelligence officials get permission in advance for wiretaps. This means missed opportunities and less effective intelligence. And it shows once again why the decisions of unaccountable judges shouldn't be allowed to supplant those of an elected Commander in Chief.
not so
The problem here is mis-stated: there is not the problem of FISA judges exercising oversight but rather a lack of such oversight which has led to abuses of the “much discussed NSA program”. These abuses are criminal and will soon be exposed to the discredit of the whole NSA program. The public reaction against criminal aspects of this surveillance will undermine support for all aspects of NSA surveillance and administration’s anti-terrorists efforts. Thus it is the lack of FISA judicial oversight which threatens anti-terrorist surveillance, not a surfeit of it.
As far as the judgment of “an elected Commander in Chief” is concerned, it is the defects in this person which have led to the present situation wherein the whole program is viewed with widespread suspicion and dislike. This will get much worse.
If you would save the counter-terrorist surveillance then you should demand lawful procedures instead of more of the sort of lawless abuse that reflects discredit on the whole of the effort.
more not so or not
Damn those reporters at the Washington Post for beating Rep Boehner to the punch with this bit on "leaked" information almost 3 months earlier.
Gadzooks, even Sen Leahy has it on his website.
more
Your references omit the detail which Boehner so egregiously let slip. It may be that Boehner has already been the subject of DOJ investigations. We shall see where the matter stands after the DOJ has completed their investigations, and whether or not Boehner joins in the criminal docket with all those others from Congress. It shouldn’t be too much longer, now.
not so or not
Discuss the legality or constitutionality of FISA all you want, the point remains that Rep. Boehner did not reveal information that was not already in the public domain. This renders the CREW complaint worthless, DOA and silly.
When questioned by
When questioned by reporters, several lawmakers, including the top Republicans on the Senate and House Intelligence committees, Christopher S. Bond of Missouri and Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, respectively, have declined to say what Boehner was referring to on Fox.
Classified information Of
Classified information
Of course, Bond and Hoekstra can't discuss classified information- it means prison if you do. Nor do they wish to be drawn into a discussion of Boehner’s fatuity. Boehner broke the law while seeking partisan political advantage and may not last much longer as minority leader. When a horse breaks its leg you have to shoot it, poor beast.
The WSJ article
reads like an editorial and seems to advocate untrammeled surveillance while waggling the al Qaeda boogie man at us.
Not a balanced article but an advocacy of more unfettered surveillance.
RE; WSJ Article
The article clearly shows that the topic of this thread was not revealed on July 31 on Fox, but rather sometime on or before July 27 in the WSj or elsewhere.
SAVE YOUR PAPER, INK AND TIME!!!
If anyone on this post, and at CREW, actually believes that the "Just-Us Department" with Gonzo-Tortureboy in charge will follow through, I still have the only existing pic of the Goodrich blimp for sale!
In June of 2006 I officially filed charges with the FBI concerning commission of a terrorist act by the Coultergeist. On two separate occasions she BRAGGED on interviews with journos from "Editor & Publisher" and "Women's Wear Daily" that it was she who sent the "New York Times" an envelope filled with white powder because she didn't like an article they ran!
It's August of 2007 and no follow up by the Feds, no arrest of Coultergeist, absolutely no "investigation"!
Enjoy being ignored by the Moron's thoroughly corrupt "Just-Us Department"!
It is gradually appearing more and more that it will be a return to the days of Vigilance Committees that will ultimately result in any "justice" for the U.S. sheeple!
Iron Mike, always a Marine
BushCheney/Republicans play it fast n loose with classified info
If this one is standard operating procedure for OVP in the White House, Cheney asked Bush to insta-declassify the information the very moment Boehner opened his mouth and spilled the beans (formerly declassfied info.)
Then, the White House will withhold classified clearance for the investigatos and prosectutors and obstruct justice, AGAIN.
Investigations! Investigations---how we love 'em!
The liberals are making a laughing-stock of themselves by their hundreds of bogus "investigations" into everything under the sun! Instead of getting the country's business done, they either "investigate" in order to destroy or try to squelch votes in the House. They evidently were given a mandate in 2006---and they are squandering it! C'mon!
As a Republican, I am
As a Republican, I am appalled and ashamed at what the House minority leader has revealed. Boehner has made a gift to terrorists of the weaknesses of our anti-terrorist programs. Boehner was trying to put blame on the Dems, but he is clearly the one who has hoof-in-mouth disease. Such indiscretion is highly blameworthy and it is time for Boehner to step down from his position as minority leader, irregardless of whether the Justice Department files charges against him. Republicans need a better man for their leader in the House, one who shows more wisdom and discretion.
quit picking on Boehner
He isn't the only one who shot his mouth off and broke the law, I bet. What about Pelosi? She pretended the whole time that she knew nothing when she knew the same as Boehner. Don't tell me that she is squeaky clean.
Boehner and Security
Someone explain to me why it is okay for a reporter to reveal that there is a secret program but not okay for Boehner. After all, if a reporter knows, someone told him/her. I am on the left and don't give 2 cents for Boehner, but I think the rules have to be the same for everyone--and I, for one, am grateful there were leaks about this outrageous program. I don't really care whether the leaks come from Dems or Gops.
the way it works
people like Boehner are supposed to be responsible. Reporters are not. It's that simple.
Go after Boner Boy, Melanie.
Just got this from Thinkprogress:
Bush and Boehner meet once a week to ‘plot strategy.’
As the Bush administration’s “point man in Congress,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), has a “meeting every week with the president to plot strategy.”
And here is the link:
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1186389294249410.xml&coll=2&thispage=2
"point man" gets pointed at
with the whole corruptive mess about to explode upon them and with nincompoops like bush and boehner in charge, repubs are in deep, deep trouble
Sure, it's a plot!
Funny---I seem to remember that Congressman Boehner opposed President Bush on the Immigration issue---some plotting! And Mr. Boehner is probably the only congressman to NOT earmark! Ask Pelosi and Murtha if they will do the same. They have to "buy" their district vote---Boehner does not.
They have to "buy" their district vote---Boehner does not.
Pelosi won with 80% of the vote, I doubt that she needed to buy a single vote.
In the November 2006 election, Boehner defeated U.S. Air Force veteran Mort Meier 64% to 36%
You are discounting the huge advantage that being an incumbent provides.
The problem is not with highly publicized earmarks but with the secret ones that enrich friends and family. Think Republicans Cunningham, Doolittle and everyone in the Alaska delegation.
"buy'?
Pelosi was not an incumbent? She doesn't earmark? Better check your facts.
John Boehner wins consistantly because he reflects the opinions and wishes of the majority of the voters in his district. He doesn't have to promise huge profitable projects to his district. How do you think Byrd, Murtha, etc. have stayed in power? And just what was Jefferson of New Orleans doing with all that "cold cash"?
A Re-Think
I have a feeling that the voters in Boehners district will be looking at him with new eyes come next election.
Don't forget the operative rule here...
IOKIYAR
(The Law of The Land!)
Yes, indeed
That's exactly it - "It's okay if you're a Republican." And, I have no doubt that the Bush Justice Dept. will decide that it is, indeed, okay for John Boehner to have divulged classified information to Neil Cavuto for the purposes of smearing Democrats. He is, after all, a Republican.
Illegal Surveillance
may be countered by illegal surveillance. Big problem when you go to court, though.
partisan political gain
Hopefully, Boehner will suffer the consequences that anyone else would. We shall see if "privilege" covers Mr. Boehner by some twisting of doctrine by the DOJ, Congress or the courts, a la Jefferson.
Syndicate this content
prior art
This stuff on the FISA court had been bouncing around for well over a week before Neil Cavuto and Rep. Boehner sat down to talk.
AP seems to be spilling the beans on 30 July ...
The new plan, offered late last week by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, would change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow surveillance without a warrant of terror suspects who are overseas. The Bush administration believes the FISA court now must approve such spying because many conversations and contacts taking place overseas are routed through U.S.-based communication carriers, satellites or Internet providers.