Welcome Instapundit readers. Thanks for stopping by.
We are updating regularly, scroll for latest entries.
*******************
Explains why she went ballistic.
****** End update ******
Tigerhawk writes:
All along, I assumed that the leak to the New York Times of the summary findings of the National Intelligence Estimate
was just another chapter in the permanent bureaucracy's continuing war
against the Bush administration's foreign policy. After all, I assumed,
why would a Democratic operative be so stupid as to work directly with
the New York Times on such a story?
Glenn Reynolds says: "Patrick Fitzgerald, call your office."
MacRanger opines: "This is going to get good. “Democrat Spies on the House Intelligence Committee during a time of war."
And AJ Strata sums up:
This illustrates to what lengths the Democrats will go to try and get
power. Their obsession with power has allowed them to rationalize
breaking critical national security laws and tipping our hands to our
enemies, all so they can cripple this President and win elections. This
is much more serious than sick emails to a Page. This kind of activity
that over the past year has tipped off our enemies on how to avoid
detection, even making the leaked intel information fodder for terrorist handbooks.
This can kill people by helping terrorists get past our defenses (the
same defenses Dems want dismantled if they win control of Congress)
What are they all talking about? The LA Times has the story:
The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has
suspended a Democratic staff member pending an investigation into
whether he leaked a high-level intelligence assessment to the news
media.
The committee’s top Democrat said the suspension was “without basis.
The staff member, who was not identified, was suspended this week by
Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., his spokesman said Thursday evening.
The aide is being denied access to classified information pending the
outcome of a review, said the spokesman, Jamal Ware.
The leak to The New York Times of a National Intelligence Estimate
on global terror trends caused a political uproar last month. In the
assessment, completed in April, analysts from the government’s 16 spy
agencies concluded that the Iraq war has become a “cause celebre” for
Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that probably
will get worse before it gets better.
President Bush suggested the document was leaked for “political
purposes” weeks before the midterm elections. He later made public four
pages of the estimate’s key findings.
In a letter to Hoekstra dated Sept. 29, Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., a
committee member, said the Democratic staffer requested the document
from National Intelligence Director John Negroponte three days before a
Sept. 23 story by the Times on its conclusions.
“I have no credible information to say any classified information
was leaked from the committee’s minority staff, but the implications of
such would be dramatic,” LaHood said in the letter, a copy of which was
obtained by The Associated Press. “This may, in fact, be only
coincidence, and simply ‘look bad.’ But coincidence, in this town, is
rare.”
Ware, Hoekstra’s spokesman, said: “Chairman Hoekstra considers
security highly important, and the coincidence certainly merits a
review.”
The Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat, Jane Harman of
California, wrote to Hoekstra that she was “appalled” by his action,
which was “without basis.”
“I demand that you immediately reinstate the staffer’s access to classified information,” she said”
Ed Morrissey concludes and I agree 100%:
If this turns out to be true, the staffer should face several years in
prison. After all, the Congressional committees have to protect
national-security information, and the American people have to trust
them to do so. Politicians have often been careless with classified
material, but this will be the first time in recent memory that anyone
involved in the committees have been identified as a deliberate leaker.
That cannot go without serious consequences, or else politicians and
their staffers from both parties will manipulate exposure of secret
information for political purposes at their whim.
UPDATE:
Fox News has identified the leaker as Larry Hanauer.
The unidentified staff member is Larry Hanauer,
FOX News learned Friday. Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., suspended
Hanauer earlier this week and won't allow him access to classified
information until a review can be completed, said Jamal Ware,
Hoekstra's spokesman.
Source Watch has the following about Larry Hanauer:
At the Department of Defense, Larry Hanauer
worked at the "Israel/Syria/Lebanon desk ... Near East South Asia
(NESA)" in the Pentagon's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy, International Security Affairs."[1] (http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html)
Larry Hanauer graduated from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, in 1995. Amidst the events of September 11, 2001, Hanauer "fled the damaged headquarters building with fellow Fletcher graduates Jay Wilkins, F'88, and Mustafa Popal (F'01)."[2] (http://www.fletcherclubofdc.org/terrorismexperts.html)
"LARRY HANAUER, wrapped up a year of working on U.S. policy toward
Iraq and is now managing U.S. defense relations with Israel from his
teeny little Pentagon office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Larry was recently elected as a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, asked to join the board of the American Jewish Committee's
Washington Young Leadership Forum, and appointed to the Board of
Advisors of Fletcher's Program on Southwest Asia and Islamic
Civilization." Fall 2000 (http://rlt.freeservers.com/classnewssummer00.htm)[3] (http://www.namebase.org/xham/Larry-Hanauer.html)
Other Affiliations
- Policy Analyst, Africa Region Office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Spring 1997[4] (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/20_15.pdf)
- Core Group Member, Term Roundtable on Iran and Generational
Change: Longterm Strategic Alternatives for U.S. Policy, Council on
Foreign Relations; Roundtable Established October 2002/Report April 2003[5]
MacRanger has more:
Seems that Mr. Hanauer might have a reason to resent the Bush Administration:
“Shortly after George W. Bush is inaugurated, “[k]ey
personnel, long-time civilian professionals” at the Pentagon’s Near
East South Asia (NESA) desk are moved or replaced with people from
neoconservative think tanks. [American Conservative, 12/1/2003; Mother
Jones, 1/2004 Sources: Karen Kwiatkowski] Joe McMillan, the Office
Director, is moved to a new location outside of the Pentagon, which
according to Karen Kwiatkowski, who works at the NESA desk, is odd
because “the whole reason for the Office Director being a permanent
civilian (occasionally military) professional is to help bring the new
appointee up to speed, ensure office continuity, and act as a resource
relating to regional histories and policies.” [American Conservative,
12/1/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004; Salon, 3/10/2004 Sources: Karen
Kwiatkowski] Larry Hanauer, who has long been at the
Israel-Syria-Lebanon desk and who is known to be “even-handed with
Israel,” is replaced by David Schenker of the Washington Institute.
[American Conservative, 12/1/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004 Sources: Karen
Kwiatkowski] Other veteran NESA employees who are banished include
James Russell, who has served as the country director for Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, and Marybeth McDevitt, the country
director for Egypt. [Mother Jones, 1/2004]”
And this from one of Mac's comment entries:
April 25, 2004
WEDDINGS/CELEBRATIONS; Julie Breslow, Laurence Hanauer
…
Mr. Hanauer, 34, is a consultant on homeland security and
intelligence issues at Booz Allen Hamilton, the consulting firm in
McLean, Va. He graduated magna cum laude from the University of
Pennsylvania and received a master’s degree in international relations
from Tufts. From 1995 to 2003, Mr. Hanauer was a foreign policy adviser
in the office of the Secretary of Defense, working primarily on Middle
Eastern and European security issues.
Carol
Addendum: It seems Mr. Hanauer is not a fan of the Iraq conflict, at least from what we can tell from his own words at a Council of Foreign Relations event in 2005:
QUESTIONER: Larry Hanauer with Booz, Allen, Hamilton.
There’s a lot of discussion about regime change, whether it’s something
that we or some other outside force instigates, or whether regime
change just comes about through ordinary demographic change over time.
But I’m wondering if anyone has given thought to really what comes
next. The regime change would change the whole political structure, as
Ambassador Palmer has said; it would change the economic structure of
the country [Iran]. And I think we’re seeing now in Iraq what happens
when we pursue regime change without adequately thinking about the
aftermath. So I’m wondering what might come next, and who in the U.S.
government is thinking about it?
From this site of a young man working or visiting the Hill (search on Hanauer), I learned Larry Hanauer did a stint on the staff of NY Rep Joseph Crowley, giving Hanauer a NY connection and probably press contacts with the NY Times. Crowley’s official site is here. So that establishes a path to the NY news media.
Is this one reason why Hanauer became a disgruntled leaker?:
Larry Hanauer
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
Tufts-Fletcher-AlumniClubs-DC
[email protected]
Council on Foreign Relations. Membership Roster. 2004
As the momentum for war began to build in early 2002, Wolfowitz
and Feith beefed up the intelligence unit and created an Iraq
war-planning unit in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia Affairs
section, run by Deputy Undersecretary of Defense William Luti, under
the rubric "Office of Special Plans," or OSP; the new unit's director
was Abram N. Shulsky. By then, Wurmser had moved on to a post as senior
adviser to Undersecretary of State John Bolton, yet another neocon, who
was in charge of the State Department's disarmament, proliferation, and
WMD office and was promoting the Iraq war strategy there. Shulsky's
OSP, which incorporated the secret intelligence unit, took control,
banishing veteran experts‚ -- including Joseph McMillan, James Russell,
Larry Hanauer,
and Marybeth McDevitt‚ -- who, despite years of service to NESA, either
were shuffled off to other positions or retired. For the next year,
Luti and Shulsky not only would oversee war plans but would act
aggressively to shape the intelligence product received by the White
House.
Fox reports that Hanauer has hired Constitutional lawyer, Jonathan Turley. (Update: with a sitting Grand Jury already investigating National Security leaks to the press, Mr. Hanauer (and his boss, Jane Harman) may want to rethink this and get themselves a criminal attorney.) Turley's George Washington University bio. reads:
Jonathan Turley
J.B.
and Maurice Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law;
Director of the
Environmental Law Advocacy Center;
Executive Director, Project for
Older Prisoners
Education:
B.A. University of Chicago; J.D., Northwestern University
Biographical Sketch:
Jonathan
Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written
extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to
tort law. After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined
the GW Law faculty in 1990, and in 1998 became the youngest chaired
professor in the school’s history. He is the founder and executive
director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). He has written over
three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of
leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard,
Northwestern, and other schools. He most recently completed a
three-part study of the historical and constitutional evolution of the
military system. Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the
most notable cases in the last two decades, including his
representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada;
the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand
jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous
Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former U.S. attorneys
general during the Clinton impeachment litigation. Professor Turley has
also served as counsel in a variety of national security and terrorism
cases, and has been ranked as one of the top ten lawyers handling
military cases. He has served as a consultant on homeland security and
constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and
Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform
legislation. He is also a nationally recognized legal commentator; he
ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a
recent study by Judge Richard Posner and was found to be the second
most cited law professor in the country. He is a member of the USA
Today board of contributors and the recipient of ‘2005 Single Issue
Advocate of the Year’—the annual opinion award for the Aspen Institute
and The Week magazine. His more than 400 articles on legal and policy
issues have appeared
Current Semester Courses: Environmental Crimes Project, Environmental Law Clinic, Environmental Legislation Proj, Prisoners Project, Torts
Now here is a real scary thought. Hanauer has a connection to Karen Kwiatkowski. Karen Kwiatkowski is one of the signers to this document (can you say VIPs? Mary O. McCarthy?).
A Call to Patriotic Whistleblowing
September 9, 2004 . Washington, DC
It is time for unauthorized truth-telling.
Citizens
cannot make informed choices if they do not have the facts–for example,
the facts that have been wrongly concealed about the ongoing war in
Iraq: the real reasons behind it, the prospective costs in blood and
treasure, and the setback it has dealt to efforts to stem terrorism.
Administration deception and cover-up on these vital matters has so far
been all too successful in misleading the public. Also See:
TruthTellingProject.org
Many Americans are too young to remember Vietnam. Then, as now, senior
government officials did not tell the American people the truth. Now,
as then, insiders who know better have kept their silence, as the
country was misled into the most serious foreign policy disaster since
Vietnam.
Some of you have documentation of wrongly concealed
facts and analyses that–if brought to light–would impact heavily on
public debate regarding crucial matters of national security, both
foreign and domestic. We urge you to provide that information now, both
to Congress and, through the media, to the public.
Thanks
to our First Amendment, there is in America no broad Officials Secrets
Act, nor even a statutory basis for the classification system. Only
very rarely would it be appropriate to reveal information of the three
types whose disclosure has been expressly criminalized by Congress:
communications intelligence, nuclear data, and the identity of US
intelligence operatives. However, this administration has
stretched existing criminal laws to cover other disclosures in ways
never contemplated by Congress.
There is a growing network of support for whistleblowers. In
particular, for anyone who wishes to know the legal implications of
disclosures they may be contemplating, the ACLU stands ready to provide
pro bono legal counsel, with lawyer-client privilege. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) will offer advice on whistleblowing, dissemination and relations with the media.
Needless
to say, any unauthorized disclosure that exposes your superiors to
embarrassment entails personal risk. Should you be identified as the
source, the price could be considerable, including loss of career and
possibly even prosecution. Some of us know from experience how
difficult it is to countenance such costs. But continued silence brings
an even more terrible cost, as our leaders persist in a disastrous
course and young Americans come home in coffins or with missing limbs.
This
is precisely what happened at this comparable stage in the Vietnam War.
Some of us live with profound regret that we did not at that point
expose the administration’s dishonesty and perhaps prevent the needless
slaughter of 50,000 more American troops and some 2 to 3 million
Vietnamese over the next ten years. We know how misplaced loyalty to
bosses, agencies, and careers can obscure the higher allegiance all
government officials owe the Constitution, the sovereign public, and
the young men and women put in harm’s way. We urge you to act on those
higher loyalties.
A hundred forty thousand young Americans are
risking their lives every day in Iraq for dubious purpose. Our country
has urgent need of comparable moral courage from its public officials.
Truth-telling is a patriotic and effective way to serve the nation. The
time for speaking out is now.
SIGNATORIES
Edward Costello, Former Special Agent (Counterintelligence), Federal Bureau of Investigation
Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Daniel Ellsberg, Former official, U.S. Departments of Defense and State
John D. Heinberg, Former Economist, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor
Larry C. Johnson,
Former Deputy Director for Anti-Terrorism Assistance, Transportation
Security, and Special Operations, Department of State, Office of the
Coordinator for Counter Terrorism
John Brady Kiesling, Former Political Counselor, U.S. Embassy, Athens, Department of State
David MacMichael, Former Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council, Central Intelligence Agency
Ray McGovern, Former Analyst, Central Intelligence Agency
Philip
G. Vargas, Ph.D., J.D., Dir. Privacy & Confidentiality Study,
Commission on Federal Paperwork (Author/Director: “The Vargas Report on
Government Secrecy”–CENSORED)
Ann Wright, Retired U.S. Army Reserve Colonel and U.S. Foreign Service Officer
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatowski, recently retired from service in the Pentagon’s Office of Near East planning
Ironically,
these same gentlemen were the first up in arms (and in the mainstream
media) about the "leaking" of Valerie Plame’s (non-covert) status at
the CIA.
Surprise, surprise, Ms. K. has a blog at the HuffPo left wing hate rag.
And this from National Review:
In her expose to the LaRouche organization, the substance of which was
later published in The American Conservative magazine, Kwiatkowski
alleged that there was a purge of desk officers within International
Security Affairs. Not true. Kwiatkowski may have been upset that some
colleagues received promotions when she did not. For example,
Kwiatkowski implies that Larry Hanauer ceased being an Israel desk officer. But, he subsequently became special assistant to Jay Garner; that's a promotion, not a purge.
The Hill
The staffer acted appropriately by requesting the document for a
committee member, and Hoekstra’s "unilateral commencement" of an
investigation violates committee rules, Harman added.
She said Hoekstra admitted to her that his action was retaliation for the release of the parts of the Cunningham report.
"If you have a problem with me, why not deal with me directly?" Harman ended her letter.
The GOP leadership is capitalizing on the fight.
"I hope Democrats would never knowingly and illegally leak sensitive
information just to score political points," said House Majority Whip
Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), "and that's what an investigation would determine.
"It is absolutely necessary that the House Intel Committee conduct a
thorough review of the illegal leak of intelligence to The New York
Times in wartime," Blunt said. "I support Chairman Hoekstra’s decision
to suspend a staffer who may have orchestrated the leak until all the
facts are known."
Nancy Pelosi has no shame:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy
Pelosi sent the following letter to Speaker Hastert today regarding
Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra's unilateral suspension
of a Democratic staffer's security clearance.
Below is the text of the letter:
October 20, 2006
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
United States House of Representatives
H 232 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am writing to reiterate the concerns I expressed to you earlier
today about the outrageous action taken by Intelligence Committee
Chairman Hoekstra, against a member of the Democratic staff.
There is nothing more important than keeping Americans safe. You and
I share the critical goals of protecting our national security and
safeguarding the intelligence processes upon which our security
depends. Mr. Hoekstra's action furthers neither goal.
The unilateral decision by Mr. Hoekstra to suspend the clearances of
a Democratic staff member without consultation with the Ranking
Democrat, Congresswoman Harman, or an investigation of any kind is
unprecedented and reckless. Any action against a staff member's
clearance should come at the conclusion of an investigation, not before
one even begins, and a decision to undertake an investigation should
only come after consultation with the Ranking Democrat, as required by
committee rules.
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on global terrorism was
sent to at least six committees of Congress in May of 2006. Hundreds of
people in the executive branch were also aware of its contents.
Absolutely no evidence has been provided by Mr. Hoekstra that the
disclosure to the media of the NIE came from Congress in general or
specifically from a member, or a staff member, of the House
Intelligence Committee.
It is impossible to escape the conclusion - especially since it has
been acknowledged by Republican members of the committee - that Mr.
Hoekstra's unilateral action against the staff member was in
retaliation for the release by Ms. Harman of an unclassified committee
report on the means by which former Congressman Cunningham influenced
Intelligence Committee business. The report was an embarrassment to the
Republican leadership of the committee, as it should have been,
however, that is no justification for the action taken against the
staff member.
I urge you to personally review this matter immediately in light of
the concerns I have expressed to you. Thank you for your attention to
this matter.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pelosi
House Democratic Leader
http://www.usnewswire.com/
Time is reporting that Jane Harman is under FBI/DOJ investigation on a different matter. Harman is denying the Time report through lawyer, Ted Olson. Time is not the most reliable source, and the FBI/Justice are not commenting, so take this with a grain of salt for now. Clarice Feldlman's take on this story: "It's utter poppycock." Here is a snippet of a a long article:
Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a
major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee
assignment? That's the question at the heart of an ongoing
investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are
examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a
scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House
intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out
of the U.S. government.
The sources tell TIME that the investigation by Justice and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, which has simmered out of sight since about
the middle of last year, is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged
for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on
Harman's behalf. Harman said Thursday in a voicemail message that any
investigation of — or allegation of improper conduct by — her would be
"irresponsible, laughable and scurrilous." On Friday, Washington GOP
super lawyer Ted Olson left voicemail messages underscoring that Harman
has no knowledge of any investigation. "Congresswoman Harman has asked
me to follow up on calls you've had," Olson said. "She is not aware of
any such investigation, does not believe that it is occurring, and
wanted to make sure that you and your editors knew that as far as she
knows, that's not true... . No one from the Justice Department has
contacted her." It is not, however, a given that Harman would know that
she is under investigation. In a follow-up phone call from California,
Olson said Harman hired him this morning because she takes seriously
the possibility of a media report about an investigation of her, even
though she does not believe it herself.
A spokesman for AIPAC, a powerful Washington-based organization
with more than 100,000 members across the U.S., denied any wrongdoing
by the group and stressed that it is not taking sides in regards to the
committee assignment. Spokespersons for Justice and the FBI declined to
comment.
Michael Barone weighs in:
October 20, 2006
That NIE Leak Last Month
Where did that selective leak of the National
Intelligence Estimate come from? Well, it's beginning to look like it
came from a Democratic staffer on the House Intelligence Committee.
Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra last week suspended and denied classified information
to the unnamed staffer. According to Republican Rep. Ray LaHood, the
staffer requested a copy of the April NIE three days before part of its
contents appeared in the New York Times. LaHood, by the way, is
not necessarily a partisan spear chucker; he is close to Speaker Dennis
Hastert, but he is one of those members often chosen to preside over
divisive debates on important issues because he is perceived to be fair
and impartial. As you'll recall, the NYT story quoted the NIE
as saying that our military action in Iraq has stirred up more jihadist
activity. It conspicuously failed to quote the NIE as saying, as it
did, that our withdrawal from Iraq would stir up even more jihadist
activity.
If the staffer leaked the NIE to the Times, he could be
criminally charged. And, of course, it's outrageous on every level for
a staffer to leak classified material for political purposes.
Especially a selective leak like this one.
Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the committee, has protested strongly
against the staffer's suspension. Harman for several years has been a
responsible member on the committee. But during the course of this
calendar year, she has been making more shrill partisan statements and
fewer thoughtful critiques. The most likely reason: pressure from the
Democratic left.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is said to be determined to replace her
with Alcee Hastings, the former federal judge who was impeached by the
House for bribery and convicted and removed from office by the Senate.
And Harman faced a challenger from the shrill left in the Democratic
primary in her coastal Los Angeles area district. Harman has typically
been re-elected without difficulty and has been willing to spend
millions of her own money; her husband Sidney Harman is the dazzlingly
successful sound-system manufacturer and philanthropist. Harman won the primary
by only 62 to 38 percent. That's a narrow margin for a longtime
incumbent (she was first elected in 1992, ran for governor and lost in
the primary in 1998, then regained the seat in 2000). Her course since
her primary tells us as much about the force of the left in the
Democratic primary as Joe Lieberman's defeat two months later in his.
Posted at 12:08 PM by Michael Barone
Some of the comments over on JOM have included the observation that Jane Harman has changed recently. Where once she was liked and thought to be reasonable, the more recent Harman seems to have become more beligerant and partisan. I, too, noticed this, but didn't process it to any great extent. An entry at HuffPo by Tom Hayden may explain Harman's attitude ajustment:
"It must have been embarrassing for Rep. Jane Harman to read the front
page of the Times this week that Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi
"intends to force Harman to step down" from her slot on the House
Intelligence Committee, partly because of "concern among Democrats that
Harman is too moderate and inclined to accomodate the Republican
agenda."
...
Like Joseph Lieberman in the Senate, Harman was a forceful hawk on Iraq
when Democrats were trying [to] find a way out. Pelosi seemed [to] protect her
status. Maxine Waters finally broke with Pelosi over Iraq, and formed
an Out of Iraq congressional caucus, now enrolling some 70 members. One
of Waters' first speeches after forming the caucus happened to be in
Venice, a frustrated progressive enclave in Harman's district. In
response to a question, Waters spontaneously called on the residents to
vote against Harman. It was a breach of the usual incumbent protection
ethos, revealing the depth of divisions within the party itself.
If we're going to hope that this apologia is a 'sign', let's hope that it's a preemptive move on Commissar Calame's part to distance himself from those he believes will soon be undergoing trial for the NSC disclosures.
The thought of Keller, Sulzberger, Risen and Lichtblau wandering aimlessly around the exercise yard at Leavenworth always cheers me up.
I keep wondering of the staff dismissal on the House committee might be a precursor to something similiar happening wrt the Senate intelligence committee. Maybe accompanied by a reading of the Rockefeller memo on national TV...