Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why didn't Fitzgerald expose the fact that there was no WH investigation into the Plame leak?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 09:53 PM
Original message
Why didn't Fitzgerald expose the fact that there was no WH investigation into the Plame leak?
Edited on Sat Mar-17-07 09:59 PM by Old and In the Way
This question was posted over at HuffPo on this thread:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/fox-news-apologizes-for-y_b_43634.html?p=2#comments

Falling faster than drunk monkeys on a tightrope.

Only those with an I.Q. lower than fresh cut grass could defend bush&co now.

Where's the sense? One would think that if you worked at the White House and you came to sensitive information like someone working for the CIA, no matter if they were a janitor, if there was no need to know, one: you are obligated to report the breach, which didn't occur (a crime in of itself) and two: you think you'd be smart enough not to blab it all over the place.

Which leads me to a question: One would think that Fitzgerald would have uncovered the fact that no investigation was done by the White House. Wouldn't that have justified charges right there?

Wouldn't have Fitz asked to see the results of a White House investigation knowing it's obligated by law to have one? If he didn't, why not? One would think that would be the first place to start.

Why is the first we're hearing about no WH investigation from Waxman questioning?

hhmmmm ... anyone have an answer?

By: gonnuts on March 17, 2007 at 08:53pm

------------------

Very interesting question...anyone have insight as to why this wouldn't have come out under testimony during Scooter's trial?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. very interesting indeed....
I suspect that if Fitzgerald knew-- and how could he not?-- that is among the reasons that the defense did not call any witnesses who could have responded to that question in open court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. Quick: it's "Fitzgerald".
Before edit period expires.

Good post, too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. It's Fitzpatrick'sdaymas!
Edited on Sat Mar-17-07 10:05 PM by Algorem
I believe Joe Wilson mentioned that on Today show this morning,that the White House never did an investigation,saying it's the first thing that should have been done after an intelligence leak.He also said that Scotty McLellan told him in green room of some show that the Bush misadministration also lied to him.Maybe he's said that a hundred times already,I wouldn't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Whooops...too much green beer.
Damn Leprechauns screwin' with my keyboard...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Erin Go Frah
Erin Go Frahgmarch these bozos out of the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
here_is_to_hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #13
27. *snicker!* n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. Would he have necessarily known that? His inquiry was very focused
on the lies regarding Plame, not how they were being investigated by the wh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Wouldn't that have had some relevance to Fitzgerald's investigation
at least early on....I'd have thought that he'd want to know the outcome of Bush's promise to get to the bottom of who leaked. It does seem surprising to me that the 1st we learned about the results of this investigation (there wasn't one) was at the hearing yesterday.

I guess I'm also surprised that no one ever followed up on the results since Bush made the original commitment to find the WH leaker.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Since everyone was on the suspicious list (I'm speculating) for Fitz,
it might have been unethical or impossible for him to get that kind of info from the wh.
Their hackles were raised, and I imagine they wouldn't volunteer anything.
It also might have muddied the waters; Fitz's independent investigation vs. what info the wh's 'investigation' was unearthing?
I would love to know if Fitz was aware that nothing was being/had ever been done as far as getting to the bottom of who leaked Plame's name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. I was wondering if
Fitzgerald may have stood straight up when he heard that.

If it was a revelation to him then perhaps the investigation may no longer be dormant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. Maybe it's because the WH would not be
doing the investigation--it would be done by some agency like Secret Service or some other group that does investigations? Like, why would I have any faith in an "in-house" investigation? I would want an outside body to control it so there would be some semblance of bias-free inquiry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. He tried to but the code pink woman got in his way. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. Maybe because he was prosecuting a perjury and obstruction case against a guy named Libby
and not conducting an investigation into WH conduct? Maybe?

He didn't have to go far afield to get a conviction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. All it means is it wasn't relevant at Libby's trial.
I fully expect there is evidence to this effect within his investigation in the material that he has not volunteered to Congress, and in the case of Grand Jury evidence, legally cannot disclose at all. I mean, he is a US Attorney himself here; he has professional responsibilities to the Executive Branch, and Congress is going to have to carefully craft subpoenas if it wants to see Fitz' stuff that wasn't disclosed in the trial. But, the bottom line is, the judge would've found it prejudicial and to have no relevance to Libby's guilt or innocence, so even if Fitz had it, no point trying to bring it in when it'd be highly unlikely to be let in.

Bottom line: it's good that Congress has begun to step up and it shouldn't stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
12. Fitz said "they threw sand in his face"
I think he knew the WH hadn't investigated leak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
14. Fitz is the quintessential straight-arrow
... and that can be quite frustrating when compared with the political hatchet-job Ken Starr did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. wasn't his name and "rating" redacted
some of the US atts names were blocked out and
comments or their rating for the Bush team was blocked out.

Fitz' name was blocked out, right?

Anyone know how he was rated?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. With all the US atts being fired,
Did our Knight in Shining Armor, Fitz, withdraw his indictment against Rove in order to save his own job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnnydrama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. don't know
That just floored me.

The leak could have been the most innocent of leaks, all the way to some spy in the white house trying to do damage to the US, and anywhere in between.

That they never took one step to do any investigating is just so infuriating.

The one question I thought about asking the White House security guy is did anybody ask you to not convene an investigation.

I think nobody asked because they never considered the possibility that anybody would do that, but they forgot who we're dealing with here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. It is likely he would have deflected
that question besause he wasn't in that job at the time of the leak.

Now I'll bet it will be one of the questions they ask when they have another hearing and they call his predecessor Jeffrey Thompson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
39. That particular white house guy only started working in 2004. He wasn't there when it
happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 03:22 AM
Response to Original message
18. It cuuld be taht this did not emerge
in the grand jury hearinsg... perhhaps?

Sometimes a simple explanation works
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. I think that is likely
and if that is the case Fitz may take his show on the road again looking for more perjured testimony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
22. FWIW, here is what I think:
Edited on Sun Mar-18-07 08:33 AM by Hepburn
1. Fitz was doing a criminal investigation and trial and the issue of the Executive order was a civil issue.

2. The issue in the trial was whether Libby lied and obstructed justice ~~ or if he did not. So, who was or was not the leaker was not relevant to the trial issues.


If there had been indictments for the outing, then IMO the issue of a WH investigation would have been relevant in that trial, but to the actual issues of the Libby trial, there was no connection. Matter of fact, the judge had made a ruling that even if there was or was not a leak, that had nothing to do with the issues in that particular trial regarding the charges against Libby.

BTW: IMO, if Fitz asked a question in regard to some WH investigation, he may have opened the door to issues that were best left closed. The ruling that it was irrelevant whether there had or had not been a leak to the charges against Libby, to me, that is what I would call a "sweetheart" order. So, if I had been trying the case, I would have kept the heck away from that issue as well. No need to remind the jury of ANYTHING but Libby's conduct. Why basically bring up the issue that there was no one charged with actually leaking Plames ID and allow the possible thoughts to run through the head of any juror(s) of "...so, if no one is charged, why the heck is Scooter Libby sitting in the defendant's chair?"

JMHO

Edit for typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
23. Whether the WH did an investigation or not has nothing to do
with the responsibilities charged to Fitzgerald in his appointment by Comey and, therefore, he would not have made any comment on it:

I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_december_30_2003.pdf

It would have been inappropriate and outside his investigation to comment in any way on whether the WH had done an investigation or not, imo. Fitzgerald is the antithesis of Kenneth Starr, where Starr was all politics, Fitzgerald is all about the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
24. maybe I'm missing something -- how is failing to conduct an investigation a crime?
I think the fact that the WH didn't conduct an investigation and essentially misled the public about that should be shouted from the rooftops. But I'm not sure what relevance it would have to anything Fitz would do -- what "charges" could be brought for not investigating?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I don't think Fitz's narrowly focused
investigation could have encompassed the lack of an investigation at the WH. That is not the same as saying that the WH did not have a legal (and moral) obligation to investigate the leak.

Both the IIPA and an executive order make it pretty clear that an investigation was required.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. link please?
I don't see anything in the IIPA that requires the WH to conduct an investigation. And even if there was something, why wouldn't the investigation conducted by Fitz satisfied that obligation?

Not sure what the exec order you refer to is. If you have a link, I'd like to take a look at it.

Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Executive order 12958
Edited on Sun Mar-18-07 09:32 AM by POAS
You might start by reading THIS link to a January, 2004 letter from Joe Lieberman on behalf of the Government Affairs Committee and co-signed by 5 other Senators. In this letter they write this about the requirements spelled out in 12958:

The second set of questions that GAO should examine is whether the White House responded properly after the leak was disclosed. Under E.O. 12958, the White House should have taken “prompt” action to ensure that the breach was investigated and to determine whether Nondisclosure Agreements were violated, whether individuals without security clearance obtained classified information, and whether national security information was compromised. The White House also should have assessed its systems for safeguarding classified information and taken any corrective action necessary to prevent future security breaches.

In this case, press accounts indicate that the White House may not have followed these procedures in the immediate aftermath of the leak. In fact, in the weeks immediately following the publication of the agent’s identity, the White House was dismissive regarding questions about whether it would investigate the matter, emphasizing that it was difficult to look into reports of sources that were not named specifically. If high level White House officials were implicated, as press accounts have suggested, it may not have been appropriate for the White House to conduct the leak investigation itself. At a minimum, however, it should have insured that such an investigation was conducted by a properly independent body.


I hope this helps, if not at least you now have the EO number and can dig out more for yourself on this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. It is Executive Order 12958
snip

Sec. 5.7. Sanctions. (a) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds that a violation of this order or its implementing directives may have occurred, the Director shall make a report to the head of the agency or to the senior agency official so that corrective steps, if appropriate, may be taken.
(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently:


(1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;
(2) classify or continue the classification of information in violation of this order or any implementing directive;

(3) create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order; or

(4) contravene any other provision of this order or its implementing directives.


(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.
(d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order.

(e) The agency head or senior agency official shall:


(1) take appropriate and prompt corrective action when a violation or infraction under paragraph (b), above, occurs; and
(2) notify the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office when a violation under paragraph (b)(1), (2) or (3), above, occurs.


http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html

You are correct in that this has nothing to do with the Fitzgerald investigation. It does, however, have everything to do with the White House not adhering to it's own Executive Orders. Congressman Waxman has written a letter with regard to this:

March 16, 2007

The Honorable Joshua Bolten
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Bolten:

Today, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing to examine the disclosure by senior White House officials of the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. The hearing raised many new questions about the how the White House responded to an extraordinarily serious breach of national security. It also raised new concerns about whether the security practices being followed by the White House are sufficient to protect our nation's most sensitive secrets.

James Knodell, Director of the Office of Security at the White House, testified at the hearing about White House procedures for safeguarding classified information. During his testimony, Mr. Knodell made some remarkable statements about how his office handled the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's covert status. Specifically, Mr. Knodell testified:

The Office of Security for the White House never conducted any investigation of the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity;
Under the applicable executive order and regulations, your senior political advisor, Karl Rove, and other senior White House officials were required to report what they knew about the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity, but they did not make any such report to the White House Office of Security; and
There has been no suspension of security clearances or any other administrative sanction for Mr. Rove and other White House officials involved in the disclosure.
According to Mr. Knodell, the explanation for the lack of action by the White House Security Office was a White House decision not to conduct a security investigation while a criminal investigation was pending. Mr. Knodell could not explain, however, why the White House did not initiate an investigation after the security breach. It took months before a criminal investigation was initiated, yet according to Mr. Knodell, there was no White House investigation initiated during this period.

Mr. Knodell also testified that it would be inappropriate to allow an individual who was a security risk to retain his or her security clearance while a criminal investigation is pending. As members of the Committee pointed out, a criminal investigation can last years, and it would jeopardize national security not to investigate the officials implicated in the leak and suspend their security clearances if there were reason to suspect their involvement. Mr. Knodell did not dispute this point.

The testimony of Mr. Knodell appears to describe White House decisions that were inconsistent with the directives of Executive Order 12958, which you signed in March 2003. Under this executive order, the White House is required to "take appropriate and prompt corrective action" whenever there is a release of classified information. Yet Mr. Knodell could describe no such actions after the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity.

Taken as a whole, the testimony at today's hearing described breach after breach of national security requirements at the White House. The first breach was the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity. Other breaches included the failure of Mr. Rove and other officials to report their disclosures as required by law, the failure of the White House to initiate the prompt investigation required by the executive order, and the failure of the White House to suspend the security clearances of the implicated officials.

To assist the Committee in its investigation into these issues, I request that you provide the Committee with a complete account of the steps that the White House took following the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity (1) to investigate how the leak occurred; (2) to review the security clearances of the White House officials implicated in the leak; (3) to impose administrative or disciplinary sanctions on the officials involved in the leak; and (4) to review and revise existing White House security procedures to prevent future breaches of national security.

I look forward to your response and hope you will cooperate with the Committee's inquiry.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Chairman

cc:
Tom Davis
Ranking Minority Member

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Thanks for including that letter from Waxman
I didn't expect such quick action. I thought such a letter wpuld probably come on Monday. I guess this reflects the real anger and shock that was displayed when Mr. Knodell made such startling revelations during his testimony.

I hope they go after the testimony of Mr. Knodell's predecessor at the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. Do you have a link to Waxman's letter?
I can't seem to find it so I can source it elsewhere!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. Here is the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. Saying that you did what you should have done but didn't do,
comes pretty close to a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. It wasn't about sex
it was only about national security!

DUH!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
40. becaause the law says that when a leak occurs, it MUST be investigated
immediatley. there is a legal protocol for dealing with the leak. This was discussed in the waxman hearing on friday. Not following protocol when a leak of antional security occurs is a CRIME in itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diamonique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
37. anyone have insight as to why this wouldn't have come out under testimony during Scooter's trial?
Edited on Sun Mar-18-07 11:53 AM by Diamonique
Because it wasn't relevant to the charges against Scooter.

Fitz is the prosecutor. Fitz is the investigator. If he is going to bring someone or something to trial, he must rely on his own investigative findings.

Maybe if someone like Rove had been prosecuted for the leak, this could have been brought out in questioning to indicate that the WH didn't investigate because they knew what was going on all along.

But in the case of Scooter, what someone else did or did not investigate has nothing to do with whether Libby lied; and bringing that into it would have simply looked partisan (since it had no bearing on the case), and we know that Fitz is definitely not partisan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. If I remember a quote from Fitz was that if anybody stepped
forward with more info he would investigate it further

I think that left the door open

Fitz will be judged on his job by future investigations

John Dean gave him that warning... your an investigator investigate

Fitz did now we will see how far his investigation went when we see Waxman's

I'm on a wait and see mode...I'm happy he got Scooter but unhappy at how Rove escaped and how Rove is instrumental at causing havoc in the FBI even now...That Cheney didn't testify was a terrible let down

but the inevitable will happen now that Waxman is in charge
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC