O'Reilly revived "wall" falsehood to suggest Holder -- not Bush officials -- should be "prosecuted"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed "Eric Holder and Janet Reno put the wall up between the FBI and the CIA." In fact, the guidelines to which O'Reilly referred had no impact on communications between the FBI and the CIA, the Department of Defense, or any other agencies.
Discussing the possibility that the Obama Justice Department could prosecute Bush administration officials who authorized torture, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed during the April 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor that "[Attorney General] Eric Holder and [former Attorney General] Janet Reno put the wall up between the FBI and the CIA, which led to the 9-11 attacks. If anybody should be prosecuted it's him. ... Holder is your guy." In fact, the 1995 Justice Department memo and guidelines to which O'Reilly referred only addressed communications among divisions within DOJ, clarifying longtime unwritten restrictions on the sharing of information between the FBI's intelligence arm and DOJ's criminal division. They had no impact on communications between the FBI and the CIA, the Department of Defense, or any other agencies. O'Reilly should know this; when he previously adopted the "wall" falsehood, 9-11 Commission member and former Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA) told O'Reilly that the policies in question made "no limitation on any intelligence agency sharing anything with any other intelligence agency at all."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the August 22, 2005, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that former deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's "involvement in building a symbolic wall between U.S. intelligence agencies and those investigating criminal activity" aided in creating "mass confusion among the agencies that are supposed to protect us" before the 9-11 terrorist attacks. O'Reilly also declared, "[W]hat I know to be true is that there was a tremendous amount of confusion, from 1995 onward after this crazy act that Janet Reno for some reason in her office made everybody aware of, that intelligence sources overseas were not to brief criminal investigators like the FBI." Gorton responded in part by saying that "[t]here was no limitation on any intelligence agency sharing anything" and that "nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence information with other intelligence agencies." Gorton also noted that the purported "wall" predated Gorelick and Reno and was actually "created by laws sponsored by the Church Committee back in the 1970s" and "went all the way through until after 9-11 was over."
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft noted in his testimony before the 9-11 Commission on April 13, 2004, that the Gorelick memo provided the "basic architecture" for the 1995 guidelines established by Reno that formalized rules for intelligence sharing that were already in place. But, as the 1995 guidelines clearly state, the Gorelick memo and the guidelines applied only to intelligence sharing "between the FBI and the Criminal Division" within the Justice Department, not "between the FBI and the CIA":
SUBJECT: Procedures for Contacts Between the FBI [intelligence/counterintelligence functions] and the Criminal Division Concerning Foreign Intelligence and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations
The procedures contained herein, unless otherwise specified by the Attorney General, apply to foreign intelligence (FI) and foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigations conducted by the FBI, including investigations related to espionage and foreign and international terrorism. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that FI and FCI investigations are conducted lawfully, and that the Department's criminal and intelligence/counterintelligence functions are properly coordinated.
While repeating the "wall" falsehood, O'Reilly also falsely claimed that "Holder was second in command to Janet Reno" at the time the "wall" was created. In fact, Holder did not replace Gorelick as deputy attorney general until 1997 -- two years after the Justice Department issued the 1995 memo and guidelines that conservatives claim created the "wall."
From the April 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
ELLIS HENICAN (Fox News political analyst and Newsday columnist): I am on the side of doing something very simple here. Let's have an investigation. Let it be --
O'REILLY: Headed by whom?
HENICAN: Let it be -- let the Justice Department decide about the crimes that were committed here.
O'REILLY: Oh, Holder? You want Holder in charge of that?
HENICAN: Let the -- let the facts be gathered here. And let the facts lead. Why are you scared of the facts?
O'REILLY: Hold it. Do you know --
HENICAN: Why won't you let us gather the facts --
O'REILLY: -- Eric Holder is?
HENICAN: -- and take them where they lead?
O'REILLY: Do you know who Eric Holder is?
HENICAN: He's the attorney general of the United States.
O'REILLY: Do you know what he did?
HENICAN: And professionals in that office are going to make this decision, not Eric Holder.
O'REILLY: OK. Now, you listen to me.
HENICAN: Professionals in this office. That's the facts, O'Reilly.
O'REILLY: You listen to me. Eric Holder was second in command to Janet Reno. Eric Holder and Janet Reno --
HENICAN: Well --
O'REILLY: -- put the wall up between the FBI and the CIA --
HENICAN: And you -- and you didn't --
O'REILLY: -- which led to the 9-11 attacks.
HENICAN: And you were happy -- and you were happy --
O'REILLY: If anybody should be prosecuted --
HENICAN: You were happy when Gonzales was making --
O'REILLY: -- it's him.
HENICAN: You were happy when Gonzales was making these decisions. Here's the reality: Why don't we do this in this country? Let's handle this the way we handle everything, which is to allow the professionals in the Justice Department to conduct a proper investigation.
O'REILLY: The professionals in the Justice Department.
HENICAN: You stay away from the politics, though. You quit meddling --
O'REILLY: Holder is your guy.
HENICAN: You quit meddling in the politics, and you let the facts speak for themselves. If this --
O'REILLY: This -- Holder --
HENICAN: If this is illegal, I want people to go to jail.
O'REILLY: Holder is not qualified to do this. And -- hey --
HENICAN: Well, he's the attorney general of the United States.
O'REILLY: -- here's the deal.
HENICAN: He was approved.
O'REILLY: If Obama does this, it is the end --
HENICAN: No.
O'REILLY: -- of the Obama presidency.
HENICAN: No, you don't like it. I understand that.
O'REILLY: No, it's the end.
HENICAN: You don't agree with it. I get that.
O'REILLY: And if he gets hit -- if we get hit after he does this --
HENICAN: Oh, you know what?
O'REILLY: -- over.
HENICAN: You know what? Why are you so insistent on politicizing this? Why don't we let the professionals --
O'REILLY: I'm politicizing this?
HENICAN: Why -- yes. Why don't we let the professionals --
O'REILLY: Leahy is the guy calling for it; MoveOn and Soros.
HENICAN: We've got -- we've got politicians on both sides of it yelping. But you're a man who ought to have some values that we share.
O'REILLY: I do.
This Henican guy almost faced the same O'Reilly that Rivera did. Decent work on his part.
You're right, and they need to be called out each time they try it. That's exactly why MMFA is so valuable. It's also why they hate it so much.
That's because it was and is true. Clinton administration DOJ Gorelick policy on the sharing of information between the intelligencia's of the U.S.A. Military Intelligence KNEW 4, COUNT IT, 4 of the 19 Hijackers. The New York Times, no less, had an article New York Times. It's a story that's headlined this way: "Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Al-Qaeda in 2000." According to the NY Times "classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States". Mil Intel were not allowed to share that info to the FBI Gorelick wall period.
No it isnt true. It is amazingly dumb propaganda aimed at only the most gullible zombies imaginable. You are talking about the Able Danger idiocy. The one that claimed to have identified Atta in New York BEFORE he came to the United states. Once again you show flat out that you like to repeat what you were TOLD to think by Rush whether it is true or not and just dont know what you are talking about the Gorelick memo did NOTHING to stop ANY intelligence sharing between intelligence agencies. Not that they are prone to do that anyway what with beareaucratic turf jealousy but if they did the Gorelick memo wouldnt stop them.
it was and is true
Oh my word, are we going to have to argue about the Gorelick memo again? It just goes to prove that the old fantasies and nonsense spun by the right never really go away; like some incurable disease, they merely go into remission sometimes.
Okay, let's go through it.
In 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Much desired by federal law enforcement, it allowed investigators to obtain special warrants for wiretaps, searches, and other forms of covert surveillance in "national security" or "intelligence" investigations. Unlike such warrants in criminal cases, these required no evidence of criminal activity. All agents had to do was "certify" that the target was somehow connected to "a foreign power."
If an intelligence investigation yields information about criminal activities, it can be used as evidence in a prosecution just like that obtained by a conventional criminal investigation warrant. But there is an obvious potential for abuse here: Agents could call what is actually a criminal investigation (or a politically-motivated fishing expedition) an "intelligence" case in order to avoid having to meet the higher standard for a warrant under the former.
Because of that, courts began to apply a "primary purpose" test to criminal prosecutions arising out of FISA investigations. That is, in order to use evidence gained in a FISA case in a criminal prosecution, prosecutors had to be able to show that the primary purpose of that FISA surveillance was in fact gathering intelligence. If they couldn’t, they couldn’t use the evidence.
In 1995, then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick was involved in a memo providing guidance on procedures to federal agents. Part of that memo urged them to be aware of the difference between FISA and criminal investigations and to be sure to avoid the fact or the appearance of turning the former into the latter - because if they didn’t, it could screw up potential prosecutions. Put another way, agents were being told by prosecutors that if they wanted to use information gained in a FISA case in a criminal case, they needed to make sure that the FISA investigation met the "primary purpose" test because "tainted evidence" could kill an entire case.
Far from erecting some kind of arbitrary "wall," the memo "provided for significant information sharing and coordination between criminal and FI or FCI investigations," in the words of an FISA Review Court finding from 2002, which also noted that the "wall" of separation between intelligence and criminal investigations dated to the 1980s, that is, to the Reagan administration. (Obviously there was no need for such separation before FISA, since there were no special warrants for intelligence cases.)
Put another way, the idea that this "wall" prevented the sharing of information, to the degree that such a wall existed at all, it was a creation of the imaginations of turf-protecting bureaucrats. Not the law, Jamie Gorelick, the Reagan administration, or anyone else.
O'Reilly isn't interested in facts and truth. He's only interested in repeating right wing talking points and, as seen in this debate with Henican, he's willing to tell flat out lies to his viewers. He's disgusting and an embarrassment to the news profession. Once again, MM exposes O'Reilly for the liar he is.
He wants to do damage to the Obama administration and, in his upcoming book about Obama, he'll write how it was he, Bill O'Reilly, who saved America from Obama.
Zombie meme. They live...forever
This insulting idiocy about "walls" always puts me to mind that three of the 9/11 hijackers actually lived with an FBI informant, in that FBI informant's own home...
True.
Now, what kind of "wall" was it that obstructed the FBI from knowing about the 9/11 hijackers as they lived and travelled in the U.S., when three of them actually lived in the home of an FBI informant?
Seems the only two walls republicans take responsibility for destroying are the berlin wall and seperation of church and state. But they sure did a good job building a wall around responsible reporting.
"But they sure did a good job building a wall around responsible reporting."
While wearing ear muffs and blinders.
On another post today, I sarcastically defended BillO. I take it back. He is always wrong or just an idiot making money by lying. Maybe both.
I don't know this other guy but Bill won't have him back in the near future. Billo knows this guy KNOWS.
Notice how the Smear Merchants including Cheney are now all hoping that we get hit again. Everyone of them uses that as a possible I told you so. Hey Dickie C., maybe if you had meetings concerning terrorism btween Jan-Sept 2001, the next time would be the FIRST TIME. Sorry, we were hit in the same building in the '90s' and other places. But when you moved in you thought that you could scare the boogieman away with your deskchair bravado. Your way didn't work and 1000's of Americans died at home and overseas. Cheney, hell is too good for you. You are a lying snake..and I hope you live to be 110 years old so the next two generations can see what a man should not be.
Ellis Hanican has been on the factor in the past, and then, just like last night he handed bill his a*** back to him on a plate.He doesn't get too many call backs because he is too sensible and (apart fom yesterday) usually refutes all the talking points calmly, deconstructing them point by point. The last time l saw him on the factor he got bill to admit he was wrong. You should have seen the sickly smile on bill's face as he had to admit defeat.
Thanx
George Soros! MoveOn!
It doesn't matter what the subject is, O'Reilly always resorts to simply shouting that as if it was an argument about anything.
Bill has simply run out of arguments. Everything is the fault of Democrats, Soros and MoveOn, including 9/11. He'll never budge no matter how detailed a historical record you put in front of him. He's got a salivating audience to feed and a fat paycheck to earn. Accuracy be damned.
Yea they been shouting about Moveon.org and Soro's forever now. When ever they need something to beat up on, those are their favorite targets. Attack the messenger type mentality at Fox Noise. Can't actually discuss their message, noooo, we much attack them for taking the stance in the first place. "Oh my God, the audacity, they actually oppose our views here at Fox! How dare they! Let's smear their image!"
And this 'wall' that O'Reilly believes was created by Eric Holder, or basically Democrats... not a word the last eight years under Bush and all the lack of the intelligence players not getting along because of this so-called 'wall'... especially just before 9/11... no one held accountable then... that was 'cover' the rumps of the Bush crime family
But suddenly... now under Obama and now that it looks as if Eric Holder might just be let loose to go after the criminals from the Bush regime...
Now suddenly... BillO is all up in arms...
Pathetic!
typical oreilly behavior... gets hit with a little dose of reality and starts acting like a bully talking loud and going crazy while spewing complete falsehoods. holder and reno should be prosecuted? is that your solution billo? they're decisions lead to 9/11? prove it... use some facts for once. and i love how he claims it will be the end of obama's presidency if he goes through with the prosecutions, and spreading fear about how we will get hit with another attack. what a load of garbage.
i swear, this network has taken a SHARP turn to the right since january (obviously), and they are slowly starting to peel like an onion... and the more you peel it, the more its going to stink. and this is the same network that claimed msnbc has taken a sharp turn to the right when their lead commentator has harshly railed against the democratic president.
the fact is that the cia did know all about the fbi investigation of zacharias moussaoui. the 9-11 report says, page 275: "on aug. 23, 2001, director of central intelligence tenet was briefed about the moussaoui case in a briefing entitled 'islamic extremist learns to fly'."
the wall was really a floor, above which no information moved, because bush, cheney, condi, and ashcroft simply ignored every report of the threat of an attack, of which there were many. as the 9-11 report said: "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. they did not have direction and did not have a plan to institute."
and the fact that the capitol building was not a smoldering hulk that day is due only to the passengers who brought the plane down in pennsylvania. there were no shootdown orders given until 1030 that morning.
Before you all get too excited ...
Are you really unaware of the anti-investigation frenzy the Democrats put on during the Clinton impeachment? Does their "fear" of investigation mean that Clinton should have been impeached? When they charged that it was a partisan Republican witch-hunt were they just trying to hide their guilt?
Are any of you implying 9-11 was Bush's fault because he neglected national security during the nine months prior to it, but Clinton is free of guilt for not stopping or at least identifying the plot in the four years before that?
If O'Reilly bothers you because he sometimes gets things wrong, have you ever watched a guy named Keith Olberman? Or maybe Rachel Maddow?
Now I read MM and other left-wing sources because I think most of us are human beings and I've never found that species to be very accurate or reliable. I think it's healthy to know both what those who agree with me and what the other side has to say. But the echo chamber gets a little spooky as too many of you guys spout prejudice and not objectivity. Oh I don't want you to not be all supportive of each other, I know that's important for you. But like O'Reilly would tell you ... "Keep it pithy and don't bloviate."
Yeah but he would say that just before bloviating. What is it about you conservatives that just see YOUR fault in others. I have been in liberal politics a LOOOONG time and echo chamber just never has fit the left. Getting the left together on any subject is like herding cats. You guys are the brainwashed zombies. Just like you tossing this bit of idiocy at us. It has no connection with reality. It is prejudice to point out O'Rielly is flat out wrong about a historical fact which happens to him with regularity? The prejudice is YOUR you see in us what you WANT to see because it is the fault you DONT want to see in yourself.