Jack Cafferty's questions for today

[originalpckelly]

4 p.m.: Has Israel overreacted to the kidnapping of three of its soldiers?

5 p.m.: Why has the White House agreed to let a special court review the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program?

[me b zola]

1. Both are excellent questions...

..Sounds like Cafferty is a bit suspicious of both.

OT. I was looking for a GD post on the NSA/Spector story. Has there been one that I can't find?

[originalpckelly]

2. I don't know...

but I tell you Specter is a jackass. I have tried to get our people to cool it off, and give him time to do the right thing, but obviously something has been done to this law that will allow the President to get away with warrentless wiretaps.

I wish I could break the law and then have the Congress pass a law legalizing it.

By the way, it may not be Constitutional for such a law to excuse this activity. Since Congress is so tied to the success of the President, it may be like the President pardoning himself for a crime. Something that is expressly forbidden in our system of law. This law upon its passage may launch a great legal battle.

[melissinha]

3. Bush is pretending

Bush is only pretending to look into the program, nothing will come of it. Its all for appearance's sake and the November election.

[originalpckelly]

4. JACK JUST READ MY REPLY!!!!

THIS IS THE *THIRD* TIME!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Spazito]

6. Congrats! What did you send to him? n/t

[originalpckelly]

7. I was Chris in Denver

Here was my full reply even though he didn't read it all:

"I have a feeling this "law" could finally trigger a profound Constitutional conflict. Can the Republican Congress pass a law to protect a President from their own party? That is a very interesting question. It is tantamount to the President pardoning himself for his crimes. We all know that is impossible under the Constitution, but is it legal for the same political party to pardon one of its' own members? Our Constitution doesn't contemplate that, mainly because the framers didn't know political parties would develop in our system. This could be very interesting."

[Spazito]

8. Welll done! No wonder he read from your response, it is

excellent.

[originalpckelly]

10. Thanks...

:)

[Marr]

5. How "special" is this court?

I'm not sure what that means. Is it a Bush Pioneer club?

[originalpckelly]

9. That really doesn't matter...

this court may not be able to legally rule on this matter. Secondly, the Congress is basically pardoning the President because they are of the same party. You know that he would have been impeached by now if this was a Democratic Congress. That is the problem: can a party pardon one of its' own members?