well, it's a quibble over a quibble, but that version does not mesh with hers. I am prepared to believe that hers is self-serving in whole or in part, but I don't see that you have demonstrated that she "couldn't get a warrant."
> She said publicly that the FBI failed to listen to her and get the > warrants she asked for. What really happened was they reviewed her > information, sent it to legal at many levels and they all decided > they > didn't have enough to get the FISA warrant because he wasn't > connected > to a recognized foreign power. They couldn't search his laptop using > domestic laws because they didn't have probable cause. Point is she's > not a whistleblower; she's a rogue agent that thinks she knew better > than everyone else, happens all the time. If she were actually good > at > what she did she would have presented a better case and tried > different venues to get warrants rather than saying, "this will work" > then wondering why it didn't. Personally I don't want to defend the > FBI because I do think they dropped the ball, just not here. > > On 5/18/06, Dana Tierney wrote: > > fine -- do you think you could explain to me what Coleen Rowly is > wrong about without posting a link to the report of the 9-11 > COmmission and letting me guess? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:207058 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
