Enlarge

Washington (CNSNews.com) – Two members of Congress said this week that someone in the White House may have committed a crime if they offered Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) an administration job in exchange for him not running in Pennsylvania’s Democratic senate primary against Sen. Arlen Specter, an allegation that Sestak said was true.

Meanwhile, despite several media inquiries over the last few weeks and the comgressmens’ statments, the White House continues to withhold comment on the matter.

Sestak’s opponent in the primary, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, both said this week that if Sestak’s claim is true, such a job offer could constitute a federal crime.

Specter specifically said it would constitute bribery, while Issa referenced a bribery statute in a letter on the matter.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has repeatedly declined to confirm or deny Sestak’s allegation. He did so again on Thursday, Mar. 11,  even after the two members of Congress said criminal conduct could have been involved. However, the Philadelphia Inquirer previously reported that an unnamed White House source had denied Sestak’s claim.

This week, Sestak reaffirmed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe what he claimed in other TV interviews: That he was offered a job with the Obama administration if he would drop his challenge to Specter, a former Republican who switched parties in early 2009.

“Something happened last July before I got in the race and I never got asked about it, since someone asked me,” Sestak said. “You know what, I answered it honestly. I just said, ‘yes.’ I didn’t go beyond that. And actually, I don’t think I should.”

Also on MSNBC, Specter, former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, responded to the controversy in an interview with host Andrea Mitchell.

“Horse trading like that shouldn’t go on,” said Specter. “But don’t presume that it went on, Andrea. There have been a number of commentators who have picked up on what Congressman Sestak has said and identified it as a bribe, punishable by jail.”

“And that’s a pretty strong charge to make against the president’s administration, implying perhaps even the president himself,” Specter said. “So, I do think that someone who is going to make the charge ought to stand up and name names and name dates and back it up, and not just make the charge. He gets a lot of political mileage out of that pretty inexpensively, but at the expense of the administration and at the expense of the president. Making charges without backing it up is not the right way to do business.”

Mitchell then asked, “What you are telling me, that if Joe Sestak is correct, if he can prove that this was actually offered that, that is a bribe, and becomes a legal issue against whomever in the White House offered that?”

Specter said, “There is a specific federal statute, which makes it a bribe to make an offer for a public office. When I was district attorney, if somebody came and told me that, I would say, well, name names. Name dates. Name places. That’s a very serious charge. It’s a big black smear without specification. I’m telling you there is a federal crime, punishable by jail. Anybody who wants to say that ought to back it up.

Congressman Sestak has gotten a lot of political mileage out of that. It’s really an attack on the administration.”

CNSNews.com contacted Specter’s press office on Thursday to ask specifically to which statute he was referring but his office did not respond before this story was posted.

Meanwhile, Rep. Issa wrote a letter on Wednesday to White House Counsel Robert Bauer citing U.S. Code 18, Sections 211, 595, and 600 regarding the bribery of a public official. Section 595 says someone who “uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate of the District of Columbia or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under the title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”  

“While the White House may think this is politics as usual, what is spectacularly unusual is when a candidate, a U.S. congressman no less, freely acknowledges such a proposal,” Issa wrote in the letter.  “Almost always candidates keep quiet about such deals, and for good reason: They are against the law.”

In the letter, Issa specifically asked for who on the White House staff communicated with Sestak about the 2010 race for the Senate; to identify what position, if any, was offered in exchange for the commitment to not run; “what if any investigation did your office undertake to determine whether the criminal activity described by Rep. Sestak occurred?”; and, “Do you expect to make a referral to the United States Department of Justice in this matter?”

Gibbs has declined to answer questions from reporters on the matter for the past two weeks.

Fox News reporter Major Garrett asked on Thursday, “One other thing, because last Tuesday you told us, ‘I don’t have the update with me on Sestak.’ Two things have happened since then.  Two things have happened.”

Gibbs jumped in, “I don’t have any–”

Garrett said, “Darrell Issa sent a letter to the White House Counsel –”

Gibbs again interrupted, “I don’t have anything additional on that.”

Garrett asked, “Are you ever going to have anything additional on that?”

Gibbs responded, “I don’t have it today.”

The intelligence community is at risk if proposed legislation is passed.

BY Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn

Late Wednesday, congressional Democrats inserted (at the last minute) a section into the intelligence authorization bill titled, “Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogations Prohibition Act of 2010.” The section ostensibly outlaws the types of interrogation tactics (e.g. waterboarding) used by CIA interrogators on senior al Qaeda terrorists and even specifies prison sentences starting at a minimum of 15 years for those who do.

But, why are Democrats doing this now? No detainee has been waterboarded for years. And President Obama took the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) off the table in January 2009, when he issued an executive order limiting interrogators to the Army Field Manual. So, we can be certain that the most controversial techniques are not being employed currently anyway.

Moreover, congressional Democrats had the opportunity to object to the EITs when they were actually being employed. Senior congressional leaders from both parties were briefed on the EITs on numerous occasions and the Democrats did not object. (The closest they apparently got was a letter from Congresswoman Jane Harman in 2003 – which is not really an objection at all.)

Ironically, congressional sources say the Republicans tried to introduce a measure that would have provided for additional disclosure of the EIT briefings, but the Democrats rejected it.

So, again, why are the Democrats doing this now?

It is not clear. But the Act has implications that go far beyond the use of the EITs. 

There is great ambiguity over what constitutes “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” treatment. And the Act does nothing to clear up this gray area. The Act specifies certain techniques the Democrats think should be off limits, but those techniques are not clearly defined. For example, the Democrats want “prolonged isolation” to be criminalized as an interrogation technique. But “prolonged isolation” is not defined further and could be interpreted any number of ways.

In the criminal justice system, it is worth remembering, solitary confinement is typically used as a disciplinary tool. Here, in the interrogation context, it may very well rise to the level of “torture” under the Democrats’ open-ended phrase “prolonged isolation.”

The same goes for “depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care.” Where does one draw the line on the amount of “necessary” sleep? Let’s say interrogators are questioning a detainee late into the night, and he says he is tired and wants to go to sleep. Are interrogators supposed to stop questioning him – even if they think he has timely, actionable intelligence on an impending attack? Is 6 hours of sleep per night sufficient, or do detainees need 8?

The Act prohibits interrogators from “[e]xploiting phobias of the individual.” But federal authorities threatened to place Najibullah Zazi’s mother in jail as a coercive measure to induce cooperation. While this was perhaps not one of Zazi’s “phobias,” it certainly was something that caused him great fear – enough reportedly to get him to cooperate. What constitutes a “phobia?” Are all of the detainee’s fears (e.g. spending a lifetime in jail) off-limits? 

The Act also prohibits all hooding of detainees. Hooding is frequently necessary when moving detainees for a variety of security reasons, but that is now torture according to congressional Democrats.  

After listing a number of ill-defined techniques that would now be criminal, the Democrats warn that “[a]ny act that causes pain or suffering to an individual equivalent to the acts described” would also earn an interrogator a prison sentence. But this just adds to the ambiguity as this could be construed to include all sorts of mild interrogation tactics that fall far short of “cruel, inhuman and degrading.”

This is a real problem. If this Act becomes law, it will surely cause confusion for interrogators who want to know where the line is, precisely, lest they be thrown in jail. This creates risk aversion among interrogators where none is warranted.

The Act also contains this sentence: “The moral standards that reflect the values of the United States governing appropriate tactics for interrogations do not change according to the dangers that we face as a nation.”

With that, the Democrats would like to short-circuit the lively debate in this nation over whether the unique circumstances of the post-9/11 world required interrogation techniques beyond the Army Field Manual and the FBI’s tactics.  The CIA and the previous administration determined that yes, in fact, alternative interrogation techniques were required. But now, years after the fact, and after having failed to object previously, congressional Democrats want to change the answer to “No.”

More importantly, suppose President Obama or another future president decides that more aggressive interrogation techniques are necessary to get a dangerous, high value detainee to talk. The president would now have to get Congress to repeal its ill-informed law just to progress with the senior terrorist’s interrogation. (It is one thing for a president to rescind an executive order. It is quite another to get Congress to change its laws.) 

Then, there is this “finding”:

Torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment do not produce consistently reliable information and intelligence, and are not acceptable practices because their use runs counter to our identity and values as a nation.

Many of the most severe techniques the Democrats include in the “torture…cruel, inhuman, and degrading” category were used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In the days, weeks, and months following the most severe interrogations of KSM, numerous terrorists were rounded up and terrorist attacks foiled. (See, for example, here and here.) The CIA has consistently pointed to the value of the intelligence gleaned from senior al Qaeda terrorists placed in the enhanced interrogation program. And even President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has conceded that the interrogations using EITs produced “high value” intelligence.  

Therefore, it is simply dishonest to claim that these techniques, as employed by the CIA’s professionals, did not “produce consistently reliable information and intelligence.”

There is plenty of room for honest debate on interrogations, including what techniques should and should not be used. But the congressional Democrats apparently do not want to have that debate and instead prefer to use underhanded legislative tactics.

CIA Briefed At least 68 Members of Congress on “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” Between 2001 and 2007

Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has received the first batch of documents from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) regarding congressional “Torture Briefings.” The CIA produced the documents pursuant to a previous court order in Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the CIA (Judicial Watch v. Central Intelligence Agency, Case: 1:09-cv-01352). The court order stipulates that documents pertaining to congressional briefings on “enhanced interrogation techniques” must be provided to Judicial Watch by April 15. Additional documents are forthcoming.

According to the documents, previously marked “Top Secret,” between 2001 and 2007, the CIA briefed at least 68 members of Congress on the CIA interrogation program, including so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The documents include the dates of all congressional briefings and, in some cases, the members of Congress in attendance and the specific subjects discussed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who previously denied she was briefed by the CIA on the use of these techniques, is specifically referenced in a briefing that took place on April 24, 2002, regarding the “ongoing interrogations of Abu Zubaydah.” Zubaydah had been subjected to the enhanced interrogation techniques.

Judicial Watch previously obtained documents from former Vice President Cheney’s office in a separate lawsuit that detail the effectiveness of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” According to a June 1, 2005, CIA report entitled, Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al-Qa’ida, “Detainee reporting accounts for more than half of all HUMINT reporting on al-Qa’ida since the program began…” Interestingly, this fact was omitted in later versions of the report obtained by Judicial Watch. All versions, however, conclude: “One of the gains to detaining the additional terrorists has been the thwarting of a number of al-Qa’ida operations in the United States and overseas.”

Despite the apparent effectiveness of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the federal government suspended their use in 2005 by passing the Detainee Treatment Act. President Obama officially banned the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” during his first week in office in January 2009. Two months later, in March 2009, President Obama overruled objections from national security officials and released documents detailing the government’s enhanced interrogation program (the so-called “torture” memos). However, President Obama initially withheld information detailing the results of this program, including alleged terrorist plots that the program prevented.

Moreover, according to an April 2009 CNN report, President Obama’s Intelligence Director, retired Admiral Dennis Blair, told colleagues in an April 16 memo on the subject of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” that “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country.” This sentence was omitted from a version of the memo released by Blair’s office to the press.

“It is unfortunate that it took a federal court order to force the Obama administration to release these documents,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents indicate that members of Congress approved of and were well aware of the use of these enhanced interrogation techniques and their lifesaving value. It is disturbing that we no longer use interrogation techniques that have demonstrably stopped terrorist attacks and saved American lives. The Obama administration has made this country less safe by its mishandling of the enhanced interrogation program.”

————————————————

Prodded by the release of dozens of declassified CIA documents, Wicked Witch of the West Nancy Pelosi lies about knowing  about CIA techniques.

MORE

Enlarge

By T.W. FARNAM And BRODY MULLINS–WSJ

Military officials bought thousands of dollars worth of alcohol, food and other amenities for the U.S. lawmakers they accompanied on trips overseas, travel records viewed by The Wall Street Journal show.

The documents don’t show these outlays have secured any favors or favoritism from lawmakers. And the funds spent by military personnel—which ran about $4,300 per trip for the 43 trips examined by the Journal—usually account for only a small portion of the total lawmakers spend on overseas travel.

Instead, the records shed light for the first time on how the military exploits its official escort role on these trips to foster relationships with lawmakers who approve departmental budgets and top appointments. The disclosures also underscore the military’s pervasive pursuit of congressional access.

Indeed, the military aides who accompany lawmakers overseas are usually the same people who lobby Congress at home; their offices are in buildings shared with lawmakers.

Joel Johnson, a defense-industry analyst with the TEAL Group Corp. who once worked on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described the situation as the equivalent of companies taking clients golfing. "These trips provide a bonding experience for the military officials and the lawmakers," he said, "and that is helpful for the military when they are seeking particular things in appropriations or authorizations."

Overseas trips are initiated by lawmakers and must be approved by committee chairmen or other congressional leaders. The lawmaker leading the delegation selects a division of the armed forces to help coordinate the trip.

When lawmakers return, congressional rules require they file a form disclosing their costs in such broad categories as transportation, meals and accommodations. But they aren’t required to disclose all foreign-trip expenses. The documents obtained by the Journal show that lawmakers don’t disclose much of the costs of alcohol, food and other supplies purchased for them by military liaisons.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said lawmakers aren’t required to include those costs because "the whole idea of member disclosure is to disclose what members themselves spend, not what is being spent for support services they don’t control."

Reported spending on overseas travel was $13 million in 2008, a tenfold increase from 1995, according to an analysis by the Journal.

When Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut—who heads the Banking Committee and ranks second on the Foreign Relations Committee—traveled to Europe in December 2008 to study banking issues, the Army dispatched an official to make sure the trip went smoothly. Records show the military gave the liaison $7,000 to cover expenses.

The documents also reveal what the Army aimed to gain from its assistance. Correspondence dated Nov. 25, 2008, between Army officials whose names were blocked out noted the trip’s objectives: "1. Establish a personal connection between the Army and Senator Dodd office. 2. Create Member access through relationships. 3. Educate members of Congress on FCS," a reference to the Future Combat Systems, a multibillion-dollar modernization program favored by the Army that was killed this year by the Pentagon.

In a written statement, the Army said helping lawmakers with overseas travel was "a way to provide information about the Army to assist members of Congress and congressional staff in making fully informed decisions about Army policies, programs and budget." The Pentagon wouldn’t comment further on any specific trip or purchase.

A spokesman for Mr. Dodd declined to comment.

The travel data come from military-expense records the Journal obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request. They include information on more than 100 congressional trips planned and implemented by the Air Force and Army from December 2007 to mid-2009. In 43 of the trip reports, documents include a breakdown of expenses paid by military liaisons.

Examples of the military’s spending include $20,000 for baggage-handling tips, alcohol, snacks, refreshments and other "trip supplies" during a 13-day trip in January 2008 led by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, to Australia, New Zealand and Vietnam. That expense was in addition to the nearly $70,000 the lawmakers made public on travel-disclosure forms they filed with Congress.

Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a veteran Republican lawmaker, was also on the trip, which included 13 congressmen along with several spouses, six congressional aides, five security officials, a physician and five Air Force liaisons.

"Spending by the military is at their discretion," said Katie Grant, a spokeswoman for Mr. Hoyer. "Members have to meet all trip-disclosure requirements." Mr. Blunt’s office declined to comment.

When Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) led a trip to Africa in December 2008, the military paid $3,360 for "emergency requests" for the delegation’s visas. The liaisons also went to a Wal-Mart and bought $130 worth of cookies, mints and other munchies for the trip. They also spent $250 at Total Wine & More.

Jared Young, a spokesman for Mr. Inhofe, said the expedited visas were required after a last-minute change. "With the schedule change, they needed to get the visas back faster than they" expected, he said. He said the snacks provided sustenance on long flights, particularly since Mr. Inhofe’s delegations don’t have much time for meals on the ground.

These days, most trips are led by Democrats because most foreign travel must be approved by the party that controls Congress. Nearly all lawmakers are in a position to help the military, though, because votes on the Pentagon’s budget and programs can be contentious. So, the military says it builds relationships with as many lawmakers as possible.

Before Ms. Pelosi, a California Democrat, and nine other lawmakers left for England, India and Spain in March 2008, officials from the Air Force stocked the government plane with $438.75 worth of alcohol, including three cases of beer, 15 bottles of wine, three bottles of vodka, Crown Royal, Dewar’s and other liquor, records show. Air Force officials spent another $750 on chips, cakes and other snacks.

Military liaisons "are left the discretion of making these decisions and we made no requests for advance purchases," said Mr. Hammill, Ms. Pelosi’s spokesman.

In all, the Air Force paid $7,328.80 for expenses incurred on the nine-day trip. Most of the money was spent on "trip supplies," as well as food and alcohol to stock hospitality suites at lawmakers’ hotels. These costs weren’t disclosed in lawmakers’ travel reports.

In Kabul earlier this year, a group of lawmakers led by Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts asked a military liaison to purchase alcohol. A letter from the embassy reads: "On March 1, 2009 I was asked to obtain a bottle of Bailey’s Irish Cream…I was unable to obtain a receipt for this purchase." A handwritten note added that the purchase was made "upon the request" of Mr. Lynch.

Meaghan Maher, a spokeswoman for Mr. Lynch, said he doesn’t drink alcohol and didn’t request the purchase, saying his name appeared because he led the delegation. Mr. Lynch’s staff has asked other people on the trip who ordered the Bailey’s Irish Cream, she said, "but no one has offered any helpful information."

Drudge 

An exclusive report that will air tonight on CBS EVENING NEWS WITH KATIE COURIC reveals the alarmingly high number of members of Congress who got an all-expense paid trip to Denmark — on your dime!

Developing…