Aldrich Ames? Clinton? What the hell does this have to do with wire tappin

Help. I'm reading about the guy (of course a freep brought this up and I have no idea what he's talking about) I was 20 years old in 1994, I wasn't interested in politics or what was going on in the world. So, I'm asking for a little help.

The repugs are saying Clinton broke the law with that and yet saying if it was OK for him then it's OK for King George. In other words, repugs just admitted that George committed a crime.

thats what I'm trying to figure out, because from what I have read, it seems the investigation on this guy was happening b/f Clinton took office.

Any way, I have got to get out of here (at work) and I'll be back shortly (at home) to check in here. thanks for any help you can provide. :)

by my ex AG (RI- Arlene Violet) and other lawyers it was not illegal what Clinton did.

The Ames story is of a physical search for security reasons and at the time (one search in summer 93, and another in the fall 93) physical searches were not covered by FISA.

Clinton saw this loophole and supported an amendment to FISA that would close the loophole. That was passed and Clinton signed the amendment in 94.

The search was in 93, the bill was passed in 94. :-)

Hard to find any law broken with Clinton.

But with Bush it appears to be a slam dunk as they say - Bush committed a felony.

the constitution say no warrantles searches?

He said it was a damned piece of paper.

Like that'd stop him.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

The Courts have permitted warrant-less searches but only if Probable cause exists. The problem with Bush's surveillance is that there was NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SURVEILLANCE.

I will not go into Terry vs Ohio, where the Supreme Court of the US permitted searches for weapons to protect police Officers EVEN IF THE OFFICERS DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE. This was justified on the grounds of the "Need" of Police officers to protect themselves from harm when they stopped someone to ask them questions for acting suspiciously.

Thus the issue was the act "unreasonable"? I believe it was, but apparently the President and Congress do NOT think so.

They're just blowing smoke so their guy doesn't go to jail.

:dunce:

:P

...Ames was an 'agent of a foreign power' as defined by 50UCS1801

(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means— (2) any person who— (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; (D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

Don't forget that the law defines 'person' as:

(m) “Person” means any individual, including any officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any group, entity, association, corporation, or foreign power.