Posted on 07/24/2004 9:05:32 PM PDT by STARWISE
I believe the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires an indictment from a grand jury.
On another note, however, something big had also gone down JUST before the media went hyper on the Chandra Levy case. I can see what it was in far distant corner of my mind, but for the life of me I can just snag it forward to consciousness. Yet.
Makes you wanna vomit, doesn't it????
Maybe they should look in sandys pants
I understand. I just thought the China link to be facinating. I don't know which direction. Was Echelon used to "look at China", as I understood it, or was Echelon used to "hide China", aka Clinton/Berger. You just threw out a comment that brought back some history threads.
I feel, as a 10 year USAF veteran and tech rep on highly classified projects in aerospace, Berger did something more than protecting some files from the 9/11 panel. It had to be big. Like insurance (for him) to highly classified documents involving him and Clinton to China. BIG, BIG, BIG!
Sorry to change the subject, but a key word did it!
Lanny Davis knew his game when he admitted this was the best week of 52 to leak this story, fein outrage over the "timing" and watch as other stories wash it away. Only a Federal indictment will force this back into the limelight, and that seems unlikely.
The Watergate story went cold for many weeks after the burglary.
Savage is good for that,a regular vomitorium.
A quick search calls for a grand jury in civil cases, not for criminal/espionage cases.
Wasn't Clinton's impeachment going on at that time? I remember Condit was on some committee having to vote on it, unless my memory is totally Swiss cheese .. which it could be.
BINGO! You are EXACTLY right. Thank YOU! YES! Clinton's impeachment trial was going on at the time. And yes, Condit was ON a particular, very specific committee...
BINGO! You are EXACTLY right. Thank YOU! YES! Clinton's impeachment trial was going on at the time. And yes, Condit was ON a particular, very specific committee...
How absolutely Clintonian. Berger is sent by, um, someone, to um, borrow top secret documents -- some of which Berger "accidentally" destroyed. Berger is caught and an investigation ensues. Many months later, Berger's people leak the story, and the Democrats blame the leak on Republicans, noting the timing of the leak. The media eagerly pick up on and repeat the Democrat spin, until accusations that the Republicans leaked something for political gain become the whole story, and the allegations against Berger are virtually forgotten. But the media have to abandon even this, because any remaining slight inkling of the allegation against Berger is damaging. So after a few days Berger is forgotten but there are plenty of leading stories about murders in flyover country, the latest diet craze, and any day now there will be stories about how wonderful Edward's hair looks.
Oh, and the leak compromises the investigation and we never learn exactly why Berger took the documents, and the Republicans say nothing for fear of being accused of sounding "partisan." The scamming ability of the Clintonistas is unsurpassed.
Are you using MSN Search?
Excerpt from J. D. Hayworth floor speech March 29, 1999
"Sandy Berger Worked for the Chinese Government
Washington Weekly
Monday, March 29, 1999 Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), House of Representatives, 3/23/99
------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to bring you news from home. In my case home is the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, a district in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and now with the explosive growth in the Grand Canyon State a district that is home to well nigh one million Americans.
From the pages of the Holbrook Tribune-News, indeed from the editorial page of March 19, the headline reads, 'This Story Needs More Attention.' Paul Barger, the publisher of the Holbrook Tribune-News, writes, and I quote, 'For some time there have been reports circulating regarding the possible theft of highly classified missile secrets from Los Alamos since the 1980s. The thefts were apparently discovered in 1995, and the person allegedly involved was allowed to resign recently. The matter has been kept quiet for what seem to be political reasons.'
Paul Barger concludes, 'It is sad that so much attention is given to issues of no real import while serious matters of our national security and America's future are glossed over.' Thus, the headline from the editorial, 'This Story Needs More Attention.'
Among those who curiously seem to want to adopt a public posture of glossing over or indeed gloating in a sophomoric way about this troublesome, threatening and dangerous story, among those sadly includes the person who is the President of the United States.
At a radio and TV correspondents' dinner the other night, our own President joked that one of his favorite movies this year was, quote, Leaving Los Alamos; humor as it is defined in the last days of the 20th century. It boggles the mind.
Other matters glossed over, the past associations of the President's national security advisor. From yesterday's Washington Times on the op-ed page, Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett, II, who coauthored the book the 'Year of the Rat,' setting forth the ample evidence of Chinese involvement in the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in 1996, I read from their op-ed piece, headlined 'Leaks on Berger's Watch,' quoting now: 'We believe that, for the national interest, President Clinton's national security advisor Samuel Sandy Berger should resign immediately.
'For the past 6 years, Mr. Berger has presided over a failed and ultimately corrupt policy toward the Chinese military that betrays both the democratic standards of the American people and the national security of the United States. He is the classic example of the wrong person in the wrong job at the wrong time.
'Right out of the starting gate, Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese Government's trade office.'
Let me repeat that. 'Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese Government's trade office.
================
Good Lord .. it'll be 100 years before the filth, deceit, treason and selling out of America and her safety by this pack of rats will be undone.
I'm praying Bush doesn't allow his good intentions for non-partisanship stand in the way of persuing justice and doing right for us and our security and sovereignty. He needs to encourage the punishment of serious crimes by the Clintonistas .. from the Chinese secrets to Los Alamos to the latest cheap trick from the Bergler ....and to who knows what else will be discovered as the years unfold ...it is truly sickening.
I don't care WHAT Hillary has in those damn FBI files ... secrets and skeletons be damned. Somebody needs to say "s**w the press and the scandal, I'm not gonna take it anymore .. time for truthtelling ...." PERIOD.
- - - - - - - Even after bin Laden’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up. The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity. On March 7, 1999, (Richard) Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA.
When the former bin Laden unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. ‘Mike’ thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden.
The media killed this story within the first 48 hours - they made the premise the "timing" and saying it was being "politicized"
Journalism is nonfiction ("not admittedly fiction") entertainment.Journalism can be spoken of as an entity like the mafia rather than as competing businesses because journalists systematically limit the competition among themselves to superficial elements such as the individual reporters and editors. When it comes to the main event - to "what is important" - journalism is a mutual admiration society.
Journalism hides the freedom it actually has in story selection behind rules like "if it bleeds it leads" and "there's nothing more useless than yesterday's newspaper." But in fact journalism controls the national agenda - and journalism can rehash Watergate at any time - for any reason or no reason. Story selection is the whole game.
- You are objective as long and I am objective.
- If you ever say I am liberal,
you get your legs brokeyou are "not a journalist, not objective." And it won't be just me saying it; the whole of journalism will pile on and you will get terrible PR. And in this business we all know what bad PR can do to someone. We wouldn't want that to happen to you, would we?
- By the way, since everyone knows it isn't a serious accusation, it won't hurt if you call me "conservative." Just to balance out what the conservatives say about me, to position me as being objective. I'll do the same for you. Thanks. Just as long as we neither one of us mean it. 'Cause if it were actually true that would bring the rest of journalism down on us like a ton of bricks.
The idea around which "objective journalism" coheres - the idea around which all of liberalism coheres - is that nothing actually matters but PR. The cavalier behavior of the entire Clinton Administration can be understood in no other way. Hazel O'Leary in charge of our nuclear secrets!! "Pants" Berger in charge of national security!
And that is why liberals never accepted the result of the 2000 election - as far as they are concerned, once Gore was declared the winner of Florida he had won the PR crown. After that, details like the law, the Constitution, and the actual votes of actual voters are irrelevant to them. And that is why liberalism tends to be actually treasonous.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Aw, heck, I was gonna answer it. :)
I think, given the number of murders that happen in America daily, the way these murders are chosen for coverage is a little odd. From my part of the country, Laci Peterson is completely irrelevant. Her husband is a nobody. Nothing about him or her is outstanding. Yet I have to hear about it everyday. Is it because they are white middle-class?
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.