Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: edzuk
Do you suppose maybe Berger was seeking protect Berger. Maybe it's no more complicated than it would appear on the surface. He wanted to get rid of evidence of something he did while the Clintons were in office.

I am not suggesting he would not, or did not, do it on behalf of the Clintons, but I also think it could be that he was acting in his own self-interest. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone has reverted to the basic human nature to look out for one's self!
9 posted on 01/18/2007 6:43:51 AM PST by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: jwparkerjr

Watch an apellate judge nomination named Hillman from NJ. He was the prosecutor who pled out both Berger and Clinton. We should make a Harriet Myers type stink about him.


13 posted on 01/18/2007 6:51:10 AM PST by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: jwparkerjr
I doubt Berger to take a pee without checking with the Clintons.

This has Bubba and the Beasts' fingerprints all over it. (perhaps literally)

19 posted on 01/18/2007 7:01:59 AM PST by Churchillspirit (We are all foot soldiers in this War On Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: jwparkerjr
...maybe Berger was seeking protect Berger.

I tend to agree. Maybe we should just apply Occam's razor to this.

47 posted on 01/18/2007 8:05:45 AM PST by Lurking in Kansas (Nothing witty here... move on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson