Posted on 07/20/2004 9:06:44 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
The following excerpt was transcribed by me from my videotape of the 5 minute segment on Fox News Channel this morning entitled, "Bracing For Battle". The segment began at 9:44 AM and ended at 9:49 AM Eastern.
Guests: Richard Goodstein, Democrat strategist and former advisor to the 2000 Gore/Lieberman Campaign
Ben Ginsberg, Election law expert, and national counsel for the Bush/Cheney 2004 Campaign. (He was also counsel to Bush/Cheney during the 2000 election re-count)
Bottom line excerpt:
Ben Ginsberg: "The essential point is, did Sandy Berger, who is one of John Kerry's top advisors, get those documents - those classified documents that he was stuffing down his pants in the National Archives - to the Kerry Campaign for their benefit? And that's an essential question that needs to be answered by the Kerry Campaign. Did they benefit from documents and information they should not have had?"
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
I agree we need to put these guy's in jail for this stuff.
Never let these deeds go unpunished, make them pay the price.
Rush called it Trousergate.
Rush said the docs contain info directly stating that AlQ were in the States in 1999.
Per Rush Limbaugh ... Kerry campaign just issues a Reno-era style "no comment during an ongoing investigation."
FIVE TIMES!??
Same way Nicole and Ron inadvertently ran into OJ's knife several times.
BUMP for later...
Man, Rush is having a field day with this. Sandy Burglar? OMG!!!!
DimSpin: Nothing to see here...move on...Bush's fault...liar...
Let's see. Wilson? Liar. Burglar? Thief (ahem...allegedly)
If this story has legs, I want it shouted from the rooftops. Looks like the "Misunderestimated" poker player strikes again, without doing anything but telling the truth and acting with integrity. I guess that after 8 years of x42 and SWMNBN, the country never thought they could get integrity in the Oval Office again.
(SWMNBN = She Who Must Not Be Named)
Believe it or not, I just saw two Senators, standing side by side, answer questions of the FNS anchor.
Sen Kit Bond (R) : IT's no big deal!!!!!
Sen Nelson, Fla (D): I appreciate what my colleageu just said!!!!
What is this ###?????
"Rush said the docs contain info directly stating that AlQ were in the States in 1999."
I heard that, but it doesn't make it true because Rush says so.
Easy way to clear it up. Release the documents Sandy Burgler bothered to return. That will give us a very good idea of what this is really all about.
Keeping them classified after this doesn't make sense.
;-)
I don't think Berger would have taken the documents so Kerry could read them (after all, Berger could read them in the archives, and relay the information to Kerry). If documents were taken and the "lost," it was to conceal information.
Berger Docugate ping
The New York Times: (212) 556-7652
The New York Post: (212) 930-8000
ABC: 212-456-7777
CBS: 212-975-4321
NBC: 212-664-4444
CNN: 404-237-0234
Fox:1-888-369-4762
NY York Daily News (212) 210-NEWS
LA Times 877-554-4000
Probably to protect his own legacy, more than someone else's.
Well, we know they were not 'good motives'. . .
. . .first and foremost; we know the motive was to protect; and prevent/hide from authoritive scrutiny - information that must be considered damaging/threatening; with the purpose to empower and protect, someone/some group whose motives and agenda are not served by the truth.
IMHO; that would be Clinton 'cabal'; so to speak.
(Think Kerry's name, despite his 'role' on National Security; is simply being tossed out as a destructive - one stone - two birds diversion; no more than a red herring; a favorite tactic of the Left.)
If Kerry did NOT know about Berger's theft and the investigation, then Berger lied to him about it and must be immediately jettisoned as a campaign advisor. And it doesn't say much for the Kerry campaign's due diligence if they did not know about it.
If Kerry DID know about it then he has participated in a coverup of massive proportions.
And if Kerry or anyone on his campaign actually SAW any of the documents Berger took, then they may be guilty of a federal crime.
None of this looks good for Kerry, any way you slice it. Of course the timing of the revelation is curious; but that does not make it any less serious!
I agree with you. Kerry and the Clinton's do not have the same agenda, so either Berger was working for one or the other. Since Berger worked for Clinton, if I was Kerry, I'd watch my back. OTOH, maybe that's why Kerry has the hundreds of advisors. He can't trust any of them, particularly those tainted by the Clintons.
Why were they in the archives but not given to the Bush Administration? Should a new administration get access to all state documents of the previous one? This should be a BIG story. We'll see what the partisan press does with it.
I took a different tactic on this. I emailed O'Reilly, Gibson and Hume.
Everybody else on your list is undoubtedly ignoring any contacts regarding this issue in my opinion.
Thanks for the ping, please don't misunderstand. I appreciate that. I just don't think anything will be accomplished by contacting those other entities beyond waste of time and bandwidth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.