|
|
The problem at the Department of Energy run nuclear labs was one of looking the other way while the Red Chinese took or were provided with America's most sensitive technological secrets. It has been correctly stated that the MIRV technology seemed to be acquired by Red China in the 1985-88 time frame, but things have deteriorated since then. The still classified incident they were examing in today's hearing, dealt with an incident(s) concerned this administration and happened in early 1996. In trying to protect their precious president and the DNC, the Senate Democrats seem to be able to throw their patriotism and integrity out the window ( providing they had any at left after the impeachment trial ). To debunk the most blatant series of Clinton/DNC/Whitehouse direct lies and misleading inuendo, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, has attempted to proceed with public hearings on what can be revealed to the general public from their closed sessions. As the details become abundantly clear, it proves that the Democrat legislators knew darn well that the Clinton administration has been in bed with the Red Chinese military intelligence agency, in providing them all the secret nuclear and missile data their dirty campaign cash contributions to the Clinton/Gore campaign in 1996 could buy! The sick thing about this communist Chinese connection, is that it all probably started back in Little Rock when Bill Clinton was governor with Charlie Trie, John Huang and the Riadys. The major spinmeister campaign of lies out of the White House, has been to suggest that Reagan or Bush were somehow responsible for all of this and Clinton fixed the problem. Well, yesterday's hearings put an end to any lame excuses or rationalizations that this espionage was found and dealt with by the Clinton administration, as opposed to encouraged and embraced by the DNC and the White House.
In a nutshell, the situation was one of a compromise of our national security for: 1) Illegal Red ChineseCampaign cash donations to the DNC and Clinton campaign; and after the fact, 2) To prevent embarassment to Bill Clinton as it all came to light. Between 1995 and the present, the CIA and FBI were made aware of the espionage and sought to put a stop to it. The carreer employees at these agencies were eager to move on the issue, but the Clinton appointed political cronies ignored the situation and/or hindered any investigation, persumably to help the Chinese finish their job and/or engage in a cover-up to shield Bill Clinton.
Enter Elizabeth Moler, a seemingly intelligence-unqualified Clinton political appointee made temporary head of the sensitive laboratories through the Department of Energy. Her only qualification seems to have been a desire to service Bill Clinton and/or the DNC, so strong as to overshadow any concern for our nation's national security or the possible commission of crimes! The hearing yesterday centered around her foot dragging and her failure to disclose the counter intelligence problems at the labs when duly ordered or requested, by the appropriate House of Representitives or Senate committees. She has evidentally denied everything, including even the receipt of Congressional orders to brief legislators on the problems. Lucky for us, she didn't shread the Congressional order, but hid it in her safe. Even more lucky for us, the document was found by investigators. She has emphatically denied any knowledge of the document found in her own safe, with she and her secretary the only ones with the combination.
Elizabeth Moler, former Deputy Secretary of Energy is in a lot of trouble. She may have lied under oath and she is at the heart of the politicization problem of the Department of Energy, in regard to the theft or sale of nuclear secrets by the People's Republic of China under the Clinton administration. Her body language and remarks lead me to believe that she is guilty as sin ( but that is only my observation ).
Her defense was a familiar one to anyone who paid attention to the Democrat defense of the blatant DNC campaign finance abuses of the last two election cycles. This defense is to attack the laws themselves and suggest the laws need changing, though the morally bankrupt Democrats obviously broke just about every campaign finance law already on the books. Moler said, " If you don't like the laws; I suggest you change them ". It sounds familiar, huh?
She is accused of saying this when asked about not appearing when requested before a legislative committee to explain the theft or sale of classified materials by the PRC, " They were only trying to hurt the President's China policy ". This is major lying or parsing of words, " I have never denied a request to brief a Senate Intelligence Committee ". She has carefully not mentioned the House and been specific in her denial to cite only the Intelligence Committee. She had a lawyer with her, who tried to answer some of the questions for her and/or attempt to get her out of answering the toughest, most incriminating ones. Her catch-all answer was I " met the letter of the law ". Where have we heard this kind of answer/denial before? Remember Al Gore's, " no controlling legal authority " remark, or Jabba The Ruff's " he never crossed the line " defense of Bill Clinton's lying? She kept making statements like " Secretary Pena and I..." did this or that ( possibly thinking there was safety in numbers for the accused? ) and on the late 1998 plan to tighten security at the labs, done well after the fact, said " Secretary Richardson was presented with a fully developed action plan ". Okay, sure, fine, whatever; close the barn door after the horses and cows have already escaped!
Moler tried to trivialize the matter by calling it, " guns, guards, gates and locks "? Moler then tried to put the whole thing off on a carreer intelligence officer and Energy Department Acting Deputy Director, Notra Trulock, who was aware of the totally incriminating document found in her safe. This just didn't work. Trulock, in fact, claimed that he requested of her, to do a Congrssional briefing on the amount of the Chinese espionage problem, but he was turned down. When asked by Senator James Inhofe ( R ) if he ( Trulock ) was willing to take a polygraph test to try to find out which one of them was lying, Trulock enthusiastically replied in the affirmative. When asked the same question by Inhofe, Moler refused but recanted the refusal after consulting with her attorney ( though she hemmed and hawed about not seeing the point, or how it was a violation of her rights, etc. ). Man, was she squirming and giving off guilty vibes, while she was trying to avoid giving a direct answer to Inhofe's polygraph request/question!
Notra Turlock claimed he was being used as a scapegoat and he declared that Clinton appointees in the DOE suggested he cover-up the lax security and/or problems with the existing security that were not being adequately addressed. He had all the documentation necessary to back himself up and described how the initial inquiry in the winter of 1995 turned into a " full field investigation " by the FBI by the early summer of 1996. Trulock said that Moler described that the Clinton administration " used the DOE weapons labs as a tool to engage the Chinese "? Can you spell T-R-E-A-S-O-N? Oh man, I smell a big fat commie rat!
John Bloodsworth, Department of Energy Former Deputy Director of Intelligence, in general backed up what Trulock had to say. Weirdly, he was easy on Moler when being questioned by a Democrat Senator and much harder on her when quizzed by a Republican Senator? This was getting so obvious, that committee chairman John Warner had to specifically address the issue with the witness and make him clarify his answers. It was like he was a hostile witness, in a criminal trial. Through his testimony, we learned that the labs themselves, and Los Alamos in particular, didn't like the department meddling in their affairs. He called the lax security and counter intelligence situation a " self fulfilling prophesy ". After Moler and Secretary Pena seemed to be dragging their feet and didn't address the issues of counter intelligence, he had to get together with Turlock and go over Moler's head, to the National Counter-intelligence Policy Board, in an attempt to get an administration order to put a new, more concerned, policy together. He did say, " she ( Moler ) was not obstructing their efforts "? This guy was really dancing. These intelligence people are used to closed sessions, where they don't have to worry about violating national security by talking about the wrong thing by accident.
Paul Richanbach, Former Senior Advisor DOE ( Dec '97 ) is the one who cleaned out Elizabeth Molers safe. He said, " If the memo had been in her safe, I would have found it ". The problem with this testimony was that in the previous sentence, he had just described what the contents looked like as " the good stuff had been removed ". When pressed further he said, " I regret saying that ". I bet he does, his denial was easier to believe before he said it looked like someone had probably been in there already. Senator Jeff Sessions asked him if he would be willing to take a polygraph test. Sessions was remaining calm, but you could tell he didn't like the fact he was being lied to by someone.
Charles Curtis, Former Deputy Secretary of Energy clarified that the nuclear warhead technology was indeed compromised in the 1984-88 time frame. One must remember that most of these witnesses are past Clinton political appointees ( who knows which Clinton? ). Curtis was a more professional person than they other political hacks, though he is just as supportive of the defense of the Clinton administration as the others. He basically said DOE Directive 2040.2B covered " obligations with foreign visitations to the labs ", and should have been consulted. He flatly denied everything, saying, " There was no hold back of a briefing for either the House or Senate Intelligence Committees ". He called their counter intelligence plan at the labs, " a plan that is not just reactive but preventive ". He did admit, " Things could have been tightened more rapidly ". He vouched for both the people involved in the contradiction of the day, though in a stronger manner for Moler.
The real sick thing is that the Democrats like Senator Carl Levin are acting like defense lawyers again, because they know this going public will damage Clinton's reputation further. Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman tried to bring up a report from back in 1988, to waste time and fog the issue at hand. Both Levin and Bingaman used everything in the book to stall the proceedings as long as possible, but in the end only made themselves look very foolish. These democRATS value Clinton's stinking reputation more than our national security or possibly the future survival of our race.
- Bongo ( Dig for worms. )
