Senate Jay Rockefeller, ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee tasked to invesitgate intelligence used in the lead-up to the war in Iraq drafted a memo ( he says someone on his staff drafted it) that says the following:

..."prepare to launch an investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the [Senate] majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time — but we can only do so once ... the best time would probably be next year."

"Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq."

Democrats Mull Politicizing Iraq War Intelligence

Is this politics in its most raw form?

Does it give pause to those who have believed this investigation genuine?

Does anyone question recent statements made by Rockefeller now that his motives are exposed?

Should Rockefeller be removed from the Intelligence Committee?

Does this call into question Mr. Rockefeller's ethics?

Or

Do you believe the bigger problem here is that someone snooped through Rockefellers trash or retrieved the data from a computer illegally as Mr. Rockefeller contends?

I glanced at the Fox News handling of it, but it was Hannity ranting about it, so I figured that I'd go to a reliable news source.

That said, here's my take:

1. Yes, it's some politics.

2. Yes, the investigate is being taken seriously by the Democrats and they're frustrated at the lack of cooperation by the White House into turning over any documents and by the Republicans who control the committee for limiting the investigation to just answering the question of accuracy of the assessments coming out of the intelligence agencies.

I've also seen Sen. Roberts -- the Committee chairman -- on TV and I believe he is sincere in wanting the intelligence assessments investigated.

3. I don't think this exposes Rockefeller's motives, but it does expose a possible strategy he might employ if he can't get the majority of the committee to go along with the minority in this investigation. The part about the timing of calling for the independent investigation could be considered politics, but considering how long an independent investigation could take, he's better off calling for one in January.

4. Why remove him? Seems like thought control to remove him for considering possible actions, but not forwarding those thoughts to anyone else.

5. His ethics? No. His possible strategy if the investigation doesn't get anywhere (which seems likely so far)? Sure.

Here's a nasty thought: perhaps this is a planned leak by the Democrats on the committee in order to put pressure on the President.

6. Yes, I think that Sen. Rockefeller needs to fire his cleaning crew. If that's really what happened and it wasn't a planned leak.

Actually your statement about Hannity's rant proves you didn't read the article at all, amf.

Since when is the AP an unreliable news source? Or was your statement an assertion that FOX News is not reliable? In either case, perhaps you should start a thread under "Media" and provide examples.

I do appreciate your staying on topic in the rest of your post.

Funny, but I looked all over the AP site and Yahoo and only Reuters is reporting it for some reason. Got a link to AP story?

And Reuters article, second paragraph:



Hannity was ranting about it with the label "FOX EXCLUSIVE" underneath him on the screen. I turned him off. He's not always honest, so I went looking instead for real reporting on the topic and provided a link so that others could follow along.

So, Bela, what's the problem?

Steven Den Beste, whose specious pseudo-pragmatist arguments I have repeatedly dismantled on my own website, actually wrote a pretty good article today comparing the Rockefeller memo to a situation involving intelligence investigations after Pearl Harbor. For once I think it's actually worth a read. Short version (SdB is infamously verbose, and today's article is even worse than usual):



I happen to think that politicizing an intelligence investigation is no worse than playing the "un-American" card to stifle debate, or misrepresenting dangers abroad to divert attention from a lack of diligence or competence with respect to domestic matters, but that would be tu quoque and two wrongs still don't make a right. National security is still a legitimate concern in cases such as this, even if it has been used too often as an excuse for political bullying and erosion of our rights by the Bush administration.

The article, of which I supplied a link, was contributed to by Fox News' Brian Wilson and The Associated Press. I interpreted your response to be of said article. I now realize you were watching TV.


The questions still stand, but should be addressed on the proper thread.

The memo by Rockefeller brushes right up against treason. We are at war and our troops are in harm's way. Intelligence matters are a huge[B] component of any war, particularly those of the current day. Undermining what is supposed to be a fair and impartial review of those intelligence matters gives aid and comfort to the enemy. And to what end? So the democrats can regain the White House?

For those in another thread, looking to define 'un and anti-American', I submit this memo as a glaring example of anti-American.

I suppose I should fully expect a trial soon, then, for this traitorous dog. Will you be the prosecuting attorney perhaps?

For the record, the requests for information from the administration have been made by the committee as a whole, which consists of people on both sides of the aisle. The frustration with the administration's reluctance has also been bipartisan. Requesting this information does not mean that the information (particularly sensitive intelligence information) will be on Fox News the next evening. The Intelligence committee has plenty of experience dealing with sensitive and secret information.

As Rumsfield has shown us, some memos were never really meant to see the light of day. In this case, no one has suggested in any of the reports that Rockefeller himself wrote the memo.

So I would question you very pointedly: how does the release of this memo give "aid and comfort" to the enemy?!? If this is really your thinking, then Rumsfield should be strung up as well.

(For those in another thread, looking to define the thinking of those who cry "anti-American" at everything they disagree with, I submit P51's post as a glaring example. )

This is definitely an inside the Beltway story with the shelf life of a open loaf of Wonder bread. Has anyone heard anyone actually talking about this story?

As far as "politicizing the war" goes it definitely pales in importance and significance to the deliberate exposure of Ambassador Wilson's wife as a CIA operative by someone inside the White House to conservative columnist Robert Novak.

That' would be the conservative and Republican White House, Passion51. If you're outraged about the idea of a Democrat playing fast and loose with the war for political gain, I'm sure you're equally offended when some highly-placed official in the Bush Administration "outs" a covert operative of the CIA for purely petty personal reasons.

Such an act may not be treason, but it is definitely against the law. A law signed by the first President Bush (and former CIA chief) made sure of that.

I'm sure you would agree that anyone who would deliberately reveal a CIA agent's identity for partisan motivations should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Or is your outrage only limited to scheming by Democrats and not Republicans?

If this isn't a great commercial for cross-cut paper shredders, I don't know what is!

It is disingenuous to think that either Republicans or Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, Independents, ANY political flavor you can think of would not consider the best time to attack the other side. Isn't that what strategizing is? Can you think of a Senator on Capitol Hill who wouldn't consider the logistics of his/her actions? Besides, the country would have been less receptive to the information as it was gearing up for war. The message would have been lost. It's not like the massive anti-war protests changed the minds of those who wanted the war!

With the Iraq-looking-for-uranium-in-Niger debacle out for the world to see, and the CIA and FBI chiming in that they knew the document was bogus prior to
the President's State of the Union address, it wouldn't take much to embarrass this Republican administration further.

If all it takes is a memo that was thrown away in the wastebasket to accuse a Senator of wrongdoing, just think of what we could do with any discarded information from Karl Rove's office.

Let's get real. There are more important issues at hand. Give it a rest.

And what evidence are you basing this claim on?

Which claim? You don't suppose that a strategist working in the White House wouldn't have something that could sound juicy if it got into the hands of the opposition?

That is a very good question. Why aren't the major networks covering a story about democrats politicizing war intelligence?

Why would Senator Rockefeller make such a concrete statement before intelligence prior to the war and then do a complete 180 during the war?

This is disgraceful! And what makes it worse is that the Democratic leadership doesn't have the brains [or courage] to oust the idiot who wrote this memo up. Their only response is "how did you find the memo". Take some responsibility for God's sake. Trent Lott leaves in what, 2 weeks or so after saying something questionably racist, now some moron senator is trying to make a political stratagy based on something boadering on treason and the Dem leadership is trying to weasle their way out of taking action, this is despicable.

CP

Bordering on treason, how? The Democratic senators are being stonewalled on getting an investigation in the intelligence used to convince people (like Rockefeller on the intelligence committee) that Hussein was an active threat to the United States in terms of the war on terror. The legislative branch needs to investigate the intelligence on this issue to do its job. It would be unfortunate if the Dems have to resort to the tactic referred to in the memo.

Now is it in the best interest of the country to pick the timing of that committee so that it will do the most damage in the coming election? No. Is it business as usual in the beltway? Yes.

It is also business as usual in the beltway to make partisan accusations about this being unpatriotic. Politics abound on this issue.

I think the people associated with the memo should be questioned about it. I heard quotes from rockefeller today, I thought he defended himself quite capably.

I also think that it is fair to ask how this information got out. If a democratic staffer leaked it that is one thing. But if the information was gained by nefarious means that needs to be brought to light too.

Let's try to bear in mind that getting the info out of the administration doesn't have to mean writing it on every sidewalk in ten-foot-high letters. The administration could comply with the administration's legitimate request for information, and that information could stay within the intelligence committee, without compromising national security.

This hand wringing by the right over this so-called "leak" (which it obviously was not, however, some spying might be going on)- is hilarious to me, considering the outing of the lady CIA agent for purely political gain. Man, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I certainly hope they are able to use Iraq to oust GW- he certainly deserves it considering his lies and politicalization of this war, it is called "irony" or even "comeuppance"

The whole point is if there is a good reason not to declassify this info then the Dems could be threatening national security, or the security of our soldiers on the ground in Iraq.

CR: Let's not call the pres. a liar until we know it for a fact.

CP

There's nothing in either the Fox or Reuters version about declassifying anything. They want to see the information in committee, they might raise a stink if they don't get it, but that doesn't mean anyone's pushing for it to be made available so you or I or Osama can see it.

A transcript of the complete memo, from FoxNews.com is here

Frankly, in contrast to other's opinions based on the selected quotes, I simply don't find a case to be made for treason anywhere. For instance, let's take the whole summary as written, instead of out of context:



Please note, that in the full context of the memo, they never say that intelligence damaging to the war effort is going to be released. Or even that the release of intelligence is secondary to getting out their message, at the expense of the public.

What they are saying, is that right now, the American people are less interested in the intelligenge that got us into this, as they are the casualties we are taking. But that this could certainly change if they find evidence of the Administration lying about motives and tactics used to enter the war.

The rest of the memo seems to be the same: "So far, we are getting co-operation from the majority leadership in this case. We are seeing some of the intelligence that has been declassified. However, that could change. here's what we need to do if we get to the end, and think we've been stonewalled in certain areas"

I don't see anything treasonous in this at all, or even anything especially onerous, considering that right now, they are getting what they need. It's smart business to have a plan of action, if things don't go the way you think they should. It doesn't mean they are subverting the process. At least not yet.

I think it has much to do about nothing. This just like the Rumsfeld memo that was leaked IMHO..except I was more alarmed it came out of the Pentagon. The only difference is that the Rumsfeld memo was at least a positive look that they are asking the right questions rather than using things in a negative way. Another case of "the glass is half full". Some people live for conspiracies and believe everything is.

Shrugs...

cusbilla

The only problem I have here is that the Democrats are placing no faith in the investigation that the Intelligence Committee is currently involved in. In other words, regardless of the outcome of this current investigation, a special investigator is planned.

The memo is definitely political. Rather than focussing on the truth, it is focussed on how to "best get our message out". Of course, given Senator Rockefeller's complete about face on this issue, maybe he has reason to be concerned.

There is nothing traitorous about this memo, it simply reveals the political motives of some members of Congress.

All the memo proves is that the Democrats on the Select Committee have an agenda besides honestly critiquing America's intellgence gathering. The whole point, I think, is that the Committee is meant to be a place where politicking has no place; a place where Democrats and Republicans (regardless of who is in the majority) will put aside their differences in order to tackle an overarching concern: intelligence.

They say that politics should end at the water's edge. How would you feel if Senator Ted Kennedy were kidnapped by terrorists while at a strip joint and whisked off to North Korea, and the Bush Administration dragged their feet in rescuing him, because frankly, they were glad to be rid of him? No, I'd expect this Republican Administration to say, "Yes, Ted Kennedy is considered by many to be a partisan windbag, but he's our windbag, so give him back or we'll hurt you." And if they didn't rescue Senator Kennedy, I would support the public backlash against the Administration.

This is sort of what the Democrats have done, they've shown that the greater good is not so important to them as the next election cycle - and that's very, very sad. It shows that they aren't really partners in democracy's machinery, just wrenches.

One aspect of this that people haven't brought up thus far is that this memo hurts the credibility of the entire committee, most particularly the Democratic party members of that committee. Let's say that somewhere down the road they do stumble on something legitimate that is truly alarming about the Bush administration's handling of the situation in Iraq. Anyone going to believe them? I doubt it, it will be dismissed as "politics as usual".

Republicans are ALREADY dismissing the Democrats as "politics as usual". Why should this be any different?

It's an "inside the beltway" story. Really, a non-story. Some staffer writes a memo that says that the R's are currently cooperating with the investigation, but if they balk, the D's should call for an independent investigation. Sounds EXACTLY like what the R's would do if the situation is reversed.

Politics EXACTLY as usual.

I agree, Aquilla.

This memo will make it harder for Democrats to fulfill their legitimate function as the minority party; keeping the other side honest.

Actually, if I recall correctly, the memo suggests working with the majority party (Republicans) in order to get some juicy morsels that they can later exaggerate into an independent investigation, to be triggered during the next election.

Essentially, they're saying: "Let's pretend to be conscientious senators, and actually care about the state of the nation, but only until we get the 'dirt' that we need. Then we hold onto that information as our 'ace in the hole' for when election time rolls around."

Saying that the Republicans would do the same isn't really relevant, since it can't be proven. And it would be just as Machiavellian and wrong, no matter which party engaged in that practice. When you declare that the Republicans would certainly be equally disingenous, I think you may be furthering the lack of trust that we need.

If the Dems continue on in this vein (and their subsequent delay in disavowing the memo indicates that they may) then we're in trouble.

If a republican administration is misusing intelligence to push us into wars, the public deserves to know and the Republicans will pay a political price. If the Republican Senators are trying to keep such information from reaching the public before the election of 2004 they are just as guilty of Democrats who want to try to time the arrival of bad news to coincide with the 2004 election system. This merits a Congressional investigation. The Dems should keep at getting out this information and if it is damning to the administration it is valid political ammunition.

We have a link to the note earlier on in this thread. It doesn't say that at all.

And claiming that the Republicans wouldn't do it ignores the last 6 years of Clinton where they spent most of their time trying to do it. Did they somehow get better now that Bush is in office? Can't imagine anyone who isn't biased thinking so.

Here's a link I found that has the full text of the memo:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102258,00.html

From that memo, here's a passage.



I'm sorry, but that sounds like "lead" the Republicans along in order to get some dirt on the administration to me. Later in the memo, it states:



So, after they mislead the Republicans into believing that they are sincere about investigating our intelligence agencies, then forget about working with them, and use what they've discovered to launch an independent probe "at any time."

Well, you would certainly misconstrue this staffer's words to mean that somehow the D's were "misleading" the R's into thinking that they were sincere about investigating what happened with intelligence...

BUT the R's have also been trying desperately to limit the scope of the investigation so as to not embarrass the administration. The R's want to limit the investigation to the failings in the intelligence services, while the D's also want to know exactly where the intelligence ended up and what was done with it to "filter" the intelligence that didn't fit into the pre-defined parameters specified by the Office of the Vice President (where the case for war was made).

Given that the scope of the investigation into the administration's failings is being controlled by the same party as the administration, it sounds to me like the D's are trying to play well with others for as long as possible until it becomes more clear where the administration screwed up, and then an independent investigation will probably be the only way to get the screw up properly investigated. I certainly don't expect the R's in Congress to raise a stink with this president in an election year over the faulty intelligence handling... do you?

And, of course, back to my previous assertion: this is a yawn. Who cares? It's politics as usual in Washington... for BOTH parties.

I'm not sure what you mean amd. Are you suggesting that I am somehow doomed to 'misconstrue' what the staffer meant, since I'm a Republican and therefore hopelessly biased in their favor? If so, I don't think that's justified.

I think it's pretty clear what's being said in this memo, the candor displayed in it would be refreshing if it didn't point to a wholly partisan attitude among the Democrats on the Committee.



I'm sorry, I didn't see that memo. Can you produce it please?



Why not just put up Witch Hunt posters? Wouldn't that be easier?



Again, you speak of this Administration as though they have already been convicted of wrongdoing - and it will all come to light if the Dems are just allowed to dig deeply enough. That's a witch hunt, not an investigation.



Actually, I would expect them to do so, yes. If a Republican were to discover that Bush's administration lied about the intelligence information, then yes, I'd expect that information to be made public, and to be investigated.

But since we're all being so open and honest and the candor is flowing, let's both admit what this is really all about: the Democrats don't actually have to have any proof of wrongdoing in order to smear Bush - all they need are allegations that sound just plausible enough to cause damage in an election year.

And I don't care if the Republicans have done this sort of thing before - if they have, they're rotten for doing so, and it wouldn't excuse Democrats.



This is precisely what the Democrats are hoping: that this memo will go away. I hope it comes back to haunt them later. During a war, it should not be 'politics as usual'. We have proof the Democrats are partisan hacks. Where's your proof that the Republicans are doing the same?

here is a blockbuster that vindicated Bush.

http://www.iht.com/articles/118851.html

WASHINGTON Two blockbuster magazine articles last week revealed evidence that Saddam Hussein's spy agency and top Qaeda operatives certainly were in frequent contact for a decade, and that there is renewed reason to suspect an Iraqi spymaster in Prague may have helped finance the Sept. 11 attacks.
On www.weeklystandard.com, you can find chunks of a 16-page letter by Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, responding to a Senate Intelligence Committee request for evidence of Saddam-bin Laden collaboration. Fifty specific instances from CIA, National Security Agency, FBI and Pentagon files are described, many from "sensitive reporting" never made public.

.
The Defense Department acknowledged the Oct. 27 letter included a classified annex of "raw reports or products" of U.S. intelligence agencies on "the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," cautioning that it "drew no conclusions." But with so much connective tissue exposed - some the result of "custodial interviews" of prisoners - the burden of proof has shifted to those still grimly in denial.
.
Remember how antiliberation politicians and journalists pooh-poohed Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2003 speech to the United Nations about the presence in Iraq of a Qaeda associate, identified in this space as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Powell's assertion had this "sensitive reporting" basis: "As of October 2002 al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city."
.
Deniers derogate as "cherry picking" Feith's intelligence summary available to senators: "The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, al-Ani, on several occasions. During one of those meetings, al-Ani ordered the IIS [Iraq Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office."
.
If true, that would implicate Saddam's regime in the murder of 3,000 Americans. Though the CIA can confirm two Atta trips to Prague, in 1994 and 2000, it cannot confirm the two other visits the Czechs reported, including one on April 9, 2001, with Saddam's top European agent, Ahmed al-Ani, then vice consul in Prague. George Tenet, the CIA chief,


I[B]f true, that would implicate Saddam's regime in the murder of 3,000 Americans.

Ted,

Posting full or partial texts of copyrighted materials, regardless of ownership is against AD's rules. Our excerpting limit is no more than two consecutive paragraphs, and no more than six paragraphs per article. Please note that posting copyrighted images is prohibited.

I notice you posted this same article in another thread here at AD too. Duplicate posts are considered as SPAM.

Take a minute to read the AD rules listed at the top of the page.

BTW, it was a very interesting article and I'm glad you shared it.

To me, the Rockefeller memo sounds like a good thing. Planning occurs in both parties, and there is nothing wrong with the timing scenario. Remember, the Senate has had a full plate on it's hands as of late, so time is precious. I figure they must have wanted to have lots of time to delve into the matter. Especially since the rationale for the war is resembling more of a goose chase, rather than an open and shut simplistic thing.

So in other words you think its a good thing to sacrifice the nation's security in order to play partisan politics? That sounds very dangerous to me. Not surprising though, as it seems to be pretty prevalent among the liberal element of our society.

Hmmm. Sacrificing national security for partisan politics would indeed be a bad thing. Thankfully, this memo was not about sacrificing our nation's security. Such dramatic and over-simplified accusations, though, are not surprising, and seem to be pretty prevalent among the conservative element of our society.

This is partisan politics at its worst and it is bad for the country. If this level of dishonesty is what we can expect (from one or both sides) then next years runnup to the election is going to be ugly indeed.

I would now question everything from Rockefeller and have him removed immediately.

How would the nation's security be compromised? We're talking about a senate committee dealing with the reasons for the war. If the arguments for the war are sound, then there should be no problem. If it's just about politics, the American people will get fed up with it and the hearings will disappear(kind of like the Clinton impeachment, who remembers the case to this day?) If on the otherhand, Americans feel that they were sold down a river on this one, then every American has the right to know it.

Apparently you don't know what this committee was called upon to investigate. I would think that an examination of our intelligence practices and abilities has at least a wee bit to do with national security, dontcha think? How about you quarkie?

And speaking of partisan politics, the memo outlined that Rockefeller wanted to not only find out how the intelligence services handled the intelligence data, but also how the WHITE HOUSE handled the data in making their case for war. But the Republicans on the committee are blocking that part of the investigation. As though, somehow, that has no bearing.

But that's not partisan... nooooooo

Let's say for the sake of arguement Rockefeller's comments were strictly for partisan reasons. It is severely overdue in my opinion.

What is more disturbing than coming up with tangible evidence? I am tired of any criticism twisted into anti semetic remarks. This tells me a couple of things:

There is not enough opposition to really put the conservatives in the hot seat - honesty in government only occurs through the opposition's insights. Where's a hotheaded Democrat when you need 'em?
Two, there is no defense to blatent fibbing so let's just look .....over there! If people question anything about the tactics involved, the censorship of wounded soldiers to the outright BSing of FOX their MANIPULATION will take center stage. This is a form of damage control.

Lest people forget, in times of war it is up to the individual to scrutinize the centers of power and the powers have let us know they don't like being scrutinized. Pay attention because if you don't the sunset clauses of the patriot act are out the window and the more severe measures are in effect 365 days a year - period. Ignorance is no defense.

Trouble

What in the world are you talking about?

The Rockefeller memo was to my knowledge a push into investigating the claims about the war (from weapons collaboration, wmd, and immediate threat.) One side of the office was questioning the other because of suspicion of misdirection and lies. Rockefeller's team was to find evidence backing these claims and was stopped. The reason given it would tear apart the senate. I think any reasonable person would see a cover up. It is that cut and dry.

Raw Data: Dem Memo on Iraq Intel

Just a few little tidbits from the memo that convinced me Rockefeller was "politicizing" the war:

How is that evidence of being partisan? That's evidence of wanting to convince people of the invalidity of the case for war. Was this a political decision? Yes. But that's why we call them <b>politic</b>ians. If you expect a politician to forget politics and simply rush into an investigation that would be ignored, impeded and silenced by the majority regardless of its validity, then I'm glad you don't decide who my Senator is.

RS,

Rockefeller himself stated that the evidence of Saddam's WMD was overwhelming prior to this war. His quote is located on turnea's "Iraq War, why oh why" thread. Now he is co-heading a committee investigating the evidence to which he already had some previous access - evidence he used to make the quote to which I referred - yet now is caught drafting a memo plotting strategy to find evidence proving just the opposite of what he himself has stated and use anything that is found at a time conducive to political gain.

I DO expect politicians to forget politics when investigating issues that could be a matter of national security NOT with political gain in mind.

That goes for both sides.

Look, Rockefeller was spineless to pander for public support by going pro-war. But your suggestion that he martyr the case against Iraqi WMD on the swords of a pro-war, anti-investigation majority is ludicrous. Part of being a good politician is knowing when to keep your mouth shut. Part of being a good person is knowing when to keep your mouth shut.

If someone's all pumped up and frenzied, they're probably not going to listen to reason. That's how Congress and the public was. If Rockefeller had insisted on going forward with that investigation, the press would have slaughtered him for daring to say the President was lying, and there would have been no chance of him getting anything declassified. Well, it turns out Bush was either lying or just wrong, and now when there's all but undeniable proof on his side, Jay can launch an independant investigation. I would not have voted for him again if he had done anything else; and the only reason I can see for attacking him is that it's just another opportunity to take a shot at a "peacenik."


Getting the truth is more important that "not being political." I'm proud of Jay for his actions and he's secured my vote once again. This right-wing character assassination hoopla has failed to impress me.

I agree with Belladona completely. If the person who’s job it is the “ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee tasked to investigate intelligence used in the lead-up to the war” is going to slant his investigation for political purposes then we have a real problem. If either side makes a practice of this then there would be no reason to ever accept the conclusions of such an investigation by the opposite party. It is totally unacceptable partisan politics.

Please show me where I suggest this? I only stated that I wish him not to politicize the investigation.



Getting the truth is more important than politics - period!