If the Administration claims it doesn't torture, in it's "Trust-US" kinda way, then why the need to redefine torture? I mean, if the Administration claims it doesn't torture, then that would seem to express an agreement with certain standards and conventions of the Geneva kind, concerning torture and, that they ARE being followed and respected. However, to ask for leniencies and allowances to those acts that, "we do do..." seems to imply some future need for torture if not as an allowance for current/past practices. My question is:

When is torture EVER an American Principle?

p.s.
I hope you can make some arrangements to meet with Congresswoman Harman regarding FISA. What with U.S. Code, Title 18 of Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part 1, Chapter 4, § 4. Misprision of felony and all...

==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!

Hmmmm

What would it be called:

If China, a major coal consumer, invaded the U.S.A. based on their concepts of fear, primarily the USA's possession of nuclear materials and it's proliferation and our consistent violation of U.N. treaties concerning nuclear proliferation and also based on the fact that the U.S.A. has shown it's capacity to use said weapons. Now, couple this with their overthrowing of our Governmental system in favor of Communism, the military/police system disbanded letting lawlessness run rampant, and their occupation of our home military bases. All on the pretext of guarding THEIR future national interests and control of our coal mines. What would that be called? Who in Congress would argue that the resulting insurgency must be put down? Most certainly NOT a patriotic American. So why is not living in those shoes any different than the shoes America has forced the Afghanis and Iraqis and soon to be Iranians, to wear... NOW?

REMEMBER
Every day we are fighting the people in the Middle East, we give rise to MORE terrorism, not less. But do as you must, Congressman. For it is only the children of America that must live in your legacy of unaccountability. That's all...

They have a saying in the CIA, "Blow back's a bitch."

Just imagine that blowback... and your grandchildren's burden because of your choice to remain silent, so silent... on our illegal occupation of a nation that posed no threat to us, our way of life, our freedom... on our innate ability to show such unrestrained hubris toward others in this world. Just imagine that legacy... It can't happen without you, and likewise, it can be altered with you engaged in active, responsible, measurable accountability.

Take action, John.
Silence IS betrayal of your grandchildren's future, America's future.

Please!

==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!

During my time posting at MoveOn.org, we had an interesting time talking about the trial in Germany where Condi Rice gave sworn testimony telling our friends and allies that America does not do rendition, nor do we have secret prisons. I believe this was precipitated by the rendition and secret imprisonment of one of the gentleman who was recently denied justice by America's Supreme Court.

For America's court system, the administration had no problem admitting that our government participated in these renditions.

How do you justify allowing this lying scumbag to lie to the international community? Why are you surprised that America is suffering from a credibility gap?

Russia just said that since 2003, they've uncovered a network of American and British spies that were trying to undermine their government. Wasn't that the year that Bush's slander patrol outed Valerie Plame and the diplomat/spy teams we placed all over the world?

If you don't want to deal with these issues, and regain the credibility we've lost since the advent of fascist America, maybe it's time for you to step aside.

How old are you now 100, 150? I've come to think that it isn't the timeless document known as the Constitution that is antiquated, it's the elected leaders.

America's politicians should be changed as frequently as a newborns diaper, and for the same reason. Isn't there anyone who can run against these DLC type people, or do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start over?

The stench is getting overwhelming. Since I'm an 11th grade dropout and I understand the situation, why does educated America still fall for this crap? Or are we supposed to be eating cake right now?

If they weren't so busy edifying their upline like good little AMWAY salesmen, the Blackwater Prince's of the New World Order wouldn't be able to shoot babies for Christ. But where would that leave the Conyers' and DeVoss's of the nation? Knocking on doors to sell their pyramid schemes?

Talk to your upline Mr. Conyers. Ask them if you can help us save America. Or do you have an AMSOIL franchise too?

Remember, what you allow done to others, WILL be done to you. Kharma always wins in the end.

Conyers releases Simpson transcript on Siegelman case-Rove linked
A Republican lawyer claims she was told that Karl Rove — while serving as President Bush’s top political advisor — had intervened in the Justice Department’s prosecution of Alabama’s most prominent Democrat. Longtime Alabama GOP activist Dana Jill Simpson first made the allegation in June, but has now provided new details in a lengthy sworn statement to the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee is expected to hold public hearings on the Alabama case next week as part of its investigation of possible political interference by the Bush Administration in the activities of the Department of Justice.

Today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers released the transcript from the sworn testimony of Dana Jill Simpson, the Alabama attorney who earlier this year executed an affadavit that has stirred renewed interest in the prosecution and subsequent conviction of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. In the affadavit and the closed-door interview with committee staff, she cites conversations that allege Karl Rove’s involvement in the decision to prosecute Siegelman. The issue is expected to be covered during an upcoming joint subcommittee hearing titled, “Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public Confidence in Our Federal Justice System.”

Transcript at link:
Conyers releases Simpson transcript

BUSH LIED
CONGRESS COMPLIED
NOW... PEOPLE HAVE DIED !

Iraq needs a Peace Keeping Mission, NOT MORE AMERICAN OCCUPATION!

==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!

Carville? We are listening to Carville again?

Oh no. They liked whipping Clinton supporters to death with one half their brains tied behind their backs so well last time that they have decided to do it again, apparently.

Meanwhile Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate with a health care plan that is not-for-profit.

Think about it. Do insurance companies make money by providing or withholding service? Hasn't anyone seen Sicko?

Carville? Anyone that thinks he's a Democratic strategist needs a new prescription. Anyone that thinks Pelosi or Hoyer are Democratic leadership, also seem to be on magic mushroom clouds. Anyone that thinks having Conyers in the House Judiciary would rein in the roque executive branch or restore the Constitution apparently misperceived the moment too.

And if Dems think they are going to get MORE votes to continue to do a LOUSEY job, well, I am going to re-register green and vote for a Republican President because by subtracting one from Dems and adding one to Republicans, I DOUBLE MY EXPRESSION OF ANGER with this betrayal of trust.

"Betrayal" is not too strong of a word. "Office of public trust" seems to be, however.

And the only reason I'd register green is to give fair warning to them as the number of registered Democrats is decreased by one. http://xdem.com I'd prefer they did their jobs, so this is really to show how utter my disgust is with them.

So here goes Carville, laying out the script for the high-power wrestling match, and the crowd will, of course, go wild as the pre-picked winner (Hillary) who has mysteriously taken NO STAND on the illegal wire taps issue and who knows -- probably Romney pretend to beat each others brains out.

And here's the Dems trainer In this corner, the crackpot cajun, or whatever. Blah, blah blah, Constitution, criminal has a right to see a lawyer blah blabber blab.

Hey, James! What if your crime was having AIDS?

Carville makes a good point only to those who already agree with him but when he mentions the Constitution he completely misses the point. It's about "general welfare" (up to and including disease prevention). It's about "common defense", face it germs CAN kill AMERICANS.

These are principles described in the Preamble, not in the articles, and not in the amendments. I feel so much like telling him to take a leak on some other paperwork. http://usconstitution.net/const.txt

Good luck arguing with a conseravative if you think Carville is a good political or philosophical thinker. On second thought, take your lumps. You probably deserve them.

We are so far from being Americans ourselves, being complete strangers in our own land, having a Constitution that the President can call a "goddam piece of paper" and not get booted out of office by the military! "Faithfully execute?"

Well... It doesn't even matter anymore, does it John.

Enjoy your party.

PS. Impeach all 4 of them. Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, and "Wrong Way" Steny Hoyer (who wants to repeal presidential term limits -- 109th Congress "we denigrate ourselves" hit #1.)

==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE

"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

...should not be mutually exclusive goals. While universal health care is something that many western societies have already adopted, and something that the US should have instituted long ago, it is to be hoped that Congress will also prioritize providing something that is also long overdue: Congressional oversight.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has issued a statement in in response to Paul Kiel's reporting earlier today on the unprecedented written public assurance that DOJ voting rights chief John Tanner gave to election officials in Ohio that the Justice Department had found no evidence of intentional African-American voter disenfranchisement in the 2004 election.

As Paul reported, Tanner wrote a June 2005 letter to election officials in Columbus, Ohio, offering a lengthy explanation for why the Department had not discovered sufficient evidence of discrimination, the effect of which was to "poison the well" for future litigation or investigation of the alleged election improprieties.

In his statement, Conyers says:

"I am concerned about the extreme lengths Mr. Tanner went to in order to justify the reasons African-Americans were not treated equally in the 2004 Ohio election. The committee needs to consider this matter. I am aware of no precedent for the Department acting in this capacity in the past.

Why Did DoJer Justify Bad Ohio Vote?

John Conyers' "flabbergasted" letter in response

"ARLINGTON, Va. - A "failure of the national political leadership" is responsible for the “nightmare” of the Iraq war, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said Friday.

If some of America’s political leaders were in the military they would have been relieved or court-martialed long ago, Sanchez told a conference of military journalists.

"Neglect and incompetence" by the National Security Council has led to an intractable situation in Iraq, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21272663/

The Bush Administration has used the attacks of September Eleven, 2001, to explain why they do, what they do. Be it war, torture, warrantless surveillance of Americans, or shredding the Constitution.

President Bush:
After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. In other words, if al Qaeda or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they’re saying. [White House, 5/11/06]

A former Qwest Communications International executive, Joseph P. Nacchio, happens to disagree on the timing.

Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.

The allegations could affect the debate on Capitol Hill over whether telecoms sued for disclosing customers' phone records and other data to the government after the Sept. 11 attacks should be given legal immunity, even if they did not have court authorization to do so.[WaPo, 10/13/07]

However, what more importantly must also be addressed with the fact that the president authorized the Telecoms to break the FISA Laws without express permission of a fully informed Congress (before or because of 9-11-01), but that IF he did (prior to 9/11) he failed to thwart the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001... rendering his claim to the necessity, "since Nine Eleven," moot. NO?

Kargo X covers more.

I simply ask: What good is a law that keeps an Executive from overstepping his bounds with a Congress that entertains granting him, and his cohorts, immunity from that very law?

==============
I M P E A C H
ALL of THEM !!!

Congressman Conyers:

You have the power to issue subpoenas, and yet you don't use it. Now is not the time to merely criticize and comment, but to take action. Subpoena, Subpoena and Subpoena until they can't take it anymore. Uphold the Constitution. Remember Article 1. You have the power. Use it!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

“The moment has come to get rid of Saddam”

English translation from the original published in El País on 9/26/2007.

President Bush: We’re in favor of obtaining a second resolution in the Security Council, and we’d like to do it quickly. We’d like to announce it on Monday or Tuesday [February 24th or 25th of 2003].

Prime Minister Aznar: Better on Tuesday, after the meeting of the European Union’s General Affairs Council. It’s important to keep the momentum obtained with the resolution of the European Union summit [in Brussels, on Monday, February 17th]. We’d prefer to wait until Tuesday.

PB: It could be on Monday afternoon, taking the time zone differences into account. In any event, next week. We’re looking at a resolution drafted in such a way that it doesn’t contain mandatory elements, that don’t mention the use of force, and stating that Saddam Hussein was unable to fulfill his obligations. That kind of resolution can be voted for by lots of people. It would be similar to the one passed when the Kosovo thing went on [on June 10th of 1999].

PMA: Would it be presented before the Security Council and independent from a parallel public statement?

Condoleezza Rice: In fact there won’t be a parallel statement. We’re thinking about a resolution that would be as simple as possible, without too many details on compliance that Saddam could use as [an excuse to stall via] phases and then, later on, fails to meet. We’re talking with Blix [the UN chief inspectors] and others on his team, to get ideas that can help introduce the resolution.

PB: Saddam Hussein won’t change, and he’ll continue playing games. The time has come to get rid of him. It’s just like that. Me, I’ll try from now on to use a rhetoric that’s as subtle as can be while we’re seeking approval of the resolution. If anyone vetoes [Russia, China and France together with the US and the UK have veto power in the Security Council, being permanent members], we’ll go. Saddam Hussein isn’t disarming. We have to get him right now. Until now we’ve shown an incredible amount of patience. There are two weeks left. In two weeks, we’ll be militarily ready. I think we’ll get the second resolution. In the Security Council we have the three Africans [Cameroon, Angola and Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk to all of them, also Putin, of course. We’ll be in Baghdad by the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that Saddam Hussein at that moment is either dead or has gone away. But those possibilities don’t exist before we’ve shown our resolve. The Egyptians are talking to Saddam Hussein. It seems that he’s indicated that he’s willing to go into exile if they let him take 1 billion dollars with him, and all the information that he wants about the weapons of mass destruction. [Muammar] Gadaffi has told Berlusconi that Saddam Hussein wants to go. Mubarak tells us that in those circumstances there are many possibilities that he’ll be assassinated.

We’d like to act with a mandate from the United Nations. If we act with the military, we’ll do it with great precision and focussing our targets very much. We’d decimate the loyal troops and the regular army will know quickly what it’s about. We’ve sent a very clear message to Saddam’s generals: we’ll treat them as war criminals. We know that they’ve obtained a huge amount of dynamite to blow up the bridges and other infrastructure, and blow up the oil wells. We’ve planned to occupy those wells very quickly. The Saudis would also help us by putting all the oil on the market that’s necessary. We’re developing a very strong humanitarian aid package. We can win without destruction. We’re already looking at a post-Saddam Iraq, and I believe there’s a good basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a civilian society that’s relatively strong. It could be organized into a federation. Meanwhile, we’re doing all we can to attend the political needs of our friends and allies.

PMA: It’s very important to be able to count on a resolution. It isn’t the same to act with it, than without it. It would be very convenient to count on a majority in the Security Council that would support that resolution. In fact, it’s more important to have a majority, than anyone casting a veto. We think the content of the resolution should state, among other things, that Saddam Hussein has lost his opportunity.

PB: Yes, of course. That would be better than to make a reference to “all means necessary” [he refers to the standard UN resolution that authorizes the use of “all means necessary”].

PMA: Saddam Hussein hasn’t cooperated, he hasn’t disarmed, we should make a summary of his failed obligations and send a more elaborate message. That would, for example, allow Mexico to make a move [he refers to changing its position, opposed to the second resolution, that Aznar heard personally from President Vicente Fox, on Friday, February 21st during a travel stop he made in Mexico City].

PB: The resolution will be tailored in as far as I can help you. I don’t care much about the content.

PMA: We’ll send you some texts.

PB: We don’t have any text. Just one criterium: that Saddam Hussein disarms. We can’t allow Saddam Hussein to stall until summer. After all, he’s had four months already in this last phase, and that’s more than sufficient time to disarm.

PMA: That text would help us so that we can sponsor and coauthor it, and achieve that many people sponsor it.

PB: Perfect.

PMA: Next Wednesday [ February 16th] I’ll meet with Chirac. The resolution would have started to circulate by then.

PB: That’s fine with me. Chirac knows the reality very well. His intelligence services have explained it to him. The Arabs are sending Chirac a very clear message: Saddam Hussein has to go. The problem is that Chirac thinks he’s Mister Arab, and in reality he’s making life impossible for them. But I don’t want any rivalry with Chirac. We have different points of view, but I would want it to remain there. Give him my best regards. Really! The lesser he feels that rivalry exists between us, that would be better for all of us.

PMA: How are the resolution and the inspectors’ report going to be combined?

Condoleezza Rice: In reality there won’t be a report on February 28th, the inspectors will present a written report on March 1st, and their appearance before the Security Council won’t happen until March 6th or 7th of 2003. We don’t expect much from that report. As with the previous ones, it will be six of one and half a dozen of the other. I have the impression that Blix will now be more negative than before about the Iraqis’ intentions. After the inspectors have appeared before the Council we should anticipate the vote on the resolution taking place one week later. Meanwhile, the Iraqis will try to explain that they’re meeting their obligations. It’s neither true or sufficient, even if they announce the destruction of some missiles.

PB: This is like Chinese water torture. We have to put a stop to that.

PMA: I agree, but it would be good to be able to count on as many people as possible. Be a little bit patient.

PB: My patience is over. I don’t even think about going beyond mid March.

PMA: I’m not asking you to have indefinite patience. Simply that you do everything possible so that everything comes together.

PB: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon have to know that what’s at stake is the United States’ security and acting with a sense of friendship toward us.

[Chilean President Ricardo] Lagos has to know that the Free Trade Agreement with Chile is pending Senate confirmation, and that a negative attitude in this issue could jeopardize that ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account that could also be compromised if they don’t show a positive attitude. And Putin has to know that his attitude is jeopardizing the relations of Russia and the United States.

PMA: Tony would like to extend to the 14th.

PB: I prefer the 10th. It’s like the good cop, bad cop. I don’t mind being the bad cop, and Blair’s being the good one.

PMA: Is it true there’s any possibility for Saddam Hussein going into exile?

PB: Yes, that possibility exists. Even that he gets assassinated.

PMA: An exile with some guarantee?

PB: No guarantee. He’s a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Theresa. When we go in, we’ll uncover many more crimes and we’ll take him to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Saddam Hussein believes he’s already gotten away. He thinks France and Germany have stopped the process of his responsibilities. He also thinks that the protests of last week [Saturday, February 15th] protect him. And he thinks I’m much weakened. But the people around him know that things are different. They know his future is in exile or in a coffin. That’s why it’s so important to keep the pressure on him. Ghadaffi tells us indirectly that that is the only thing that can finish him. Saddam Hussein’s sole strategy is to stall, stall, and stall.

PMA: In reality, the biggest success would be to win the game without firing a single shot, while going into Baghdad.

PB: For me it would be the perfect solution. I don’t want the war. I know what wars are like. I know the destruction and the death that comes with them. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and the widows of the dead. Of course, for us that would be the best solution. Besides, it would save us 50 billion dollars. [Translator’s note: originally, I had copied the figure of “5 billion” from the original - El País now shows 5 50 billion, so I’ve corrected that figure, too. Thanks for pointing it out, John. We regret the error.]

PMA: We need your help with our public opinion.

PB: We’ll to everything we can. On Wednesday I’ll talk about the situation in the Middle East, and propose a new peace framework that you know, and about the weapons of mass destruction, the benefits of a free society, and I’ll place the history of Iraq in a wider context. Maybe that’s of help to you.

PMA: What we are doing is a very radical change for Spain and the Spaniards. We’re changing the policies the country has followed over the last 200 years.

PB: I am just as much guided by a historic sense of responsibility as you are. When a some years from now History judges us, I don’t want people to ask themselves why Bush, or Aznar, or Blair didn’t face their responsibilities. In the end, what people want is to enjoy freedom. Not long ago, in Romania, I was reminded of the example of Ceaucescu: it took just one woman to call him a liar, and the whole repressive building came down. That’s the unstoppable power of freedom. I am convinced that I’ll get that resolution.

PMA: That would be more than better.

PB: I took the decision to go to the Security Council. In spite of the disagreements within my administration, I told my people that we should work with our friends. It would be wonderful to count on a second resolution.

PMA: The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.

PB: I am an optimist, because I believe that I’m right. I’m at peace with myself. It was our turn to face a serious threat to peace. It annoys me no end to see the insensitivity of the Europeans toward the suffering Saddam Hussein inflicts on the Iraqis. Perhaps because he’s dark, far away and a Muslim, many Europeans think that everything is fine with him. I won’t forget what [former NATO Secretary General, the Spaniard Javier] Solana once told me: why we Americans think the Europeans are anti-Semites and incapable of facing their responsibilities. That defensive attitude is terrible. I have to admit that with Khofi Annan I have a splendid relationship.

PMA: He shares your ethical concerns.

PB: The more the Europeans attack me, the stronger I am in the United States.

PMA: We should make your strength compatible with the Europeans’ appreciation.
click here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

I went to the Gibraltar Democratic Club meeting, and two of the women there go protest the war every Sat. A couple of weeks ago JC came and protested with them for a few hours. They were making peace signs and stuff to the traffic going by, and one of the women looked over at JC and asked him what he was doing. He was holding his hand so the peace sign was toward himself. Seems with all the protests he has been to that he would know how to do a peace sign. Whats up with that JC? ;)

How much more do you need John,

to put the RATS in a cage,where they belong?

Chairman Conyers Asks DNI McConnell, Asst. Attorney General Wainstein to Explain Qwest Allegations
Dear Director McConnell and Mr. Wainstein:

I am writing because of disturbing revelations over the past several days about warrantless Administration surveillance activities that allegedly occurred months before 9/11, and about claims that a company that did not participate in potentially unlawful surveillance activities may have been subject to retaliation by the Administration, including federal prosecution. According to news reports and papers filed with a federal court in Denver, as early as February, 2001, the NSA asked Qwest Communications and other telecommunications companies for some form of warrantless access to records concerning Americans’ private communications. Although the precise nature and scope of the intercepted communications has not been revealed, one report suggests that it may have involved “monitoring long distance calls and Internet transmissions and other digital information.” S. Shane, “Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11,” New York Times (Oct. 14, 2007). Although Qwest apparently refused the request, which a former Qwest executive claims led to retaliation against him and his company, it is unknown what access to confidential customer information was provided by other telecommunications companies.

I appreciated your testimony several weeks ago on behalf of the Administration in connection with proposed improvements to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It is crucial, however, that Congress be fully informed of all the Administration’s surveillance activities involving telecommunications companies, particularly in light of the Administration’s request that retroactive immunity from liability be provided to these companies and Administration officials. Accordingly, I ask that you provide the Committee with an immediate briefing on the facts behind these recent revelations, and that you then provide us with any documents concerning the nature and scope of these pre-9/11 activities and the legal basis for conducting them.

Please contact the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 (Tel: 202-225-3951 Fax: 202-225-7680) as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

Explain Qwest Allegations

Make sure to read the comments!
SWL Alert: Conyers sets the stage on NSA scandal by MisterOpus1

Mark Fuller, an Alabama judge appointed by George Bush as been accused of pension fraud, misuse of his office, perjury, criminal conspiracy and obstruction of the FBI's background check for the Federal Judiciary. These charges were made well before Fuller was assigned to prosecute Don Siegelman, former Democratic governor of Alabama.

The charges were submitted to the DOJ's public integrity section by a respected defense attorney who conducted a routine investigation prior to trying a major case. The charges were sufficiently credible to get judge Fuller removed from that case. However, he was allowed to preside over the Siegelman case. These charges of criminal activity were corroborated by signed documents by public officials involved in exposing the alleged pension fraud by Judge Fuller.
DOJ Scandal

2003 Affidavit Raises Serious Questions About Siegelman Judge
I have received a copy of an affidavit (8.7Mb PDF) filed by a Missouri attorney in 2003 which details a number of charges of unethical and criminal conduct against Judge Mark Fuller. The attorney sought Fuller’s removal from a high-profile litigation which related to a prominent Republican who was close to both the current President Bush and his father.

2003 Affidavit

Just a post for access