Posted on 07/24/2004 9:05:32 PM PDT by STARWISE
Yup, Savage was right: he predicted last week that the media would go overboard covering a missing woman, and sure enough .. sadly, but sure enough .. here comes a missing woman in Utah and a suspicious husband. They are purposely avoiding discussing the acts of possible treason and theft of classified documents by the Bergler ..even Geraldo .. it's disgusting.
""When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded." Sandy Berger
A very telling Washington Times editorial, posted on the WhiteWater FREEPER boards from 1999:
"Topic
White Water Sandy Berger must go
Washington Times National Weekly Edition March 22-28, 1999 Editorial
It's time for National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to go. Not only has his knee-jerk reaction to the Chinese espionage scandal — "We're talking about breaches of security that happened in the mid 1980s" when Ronald Reagan was president — been tired and old. But his explanation for what happened on his watch after the security breach became known is as disingenuous as any explanation ever offered by the Clinton White House. Which is saying something.
If Mr. Berger's performance March 14 on NBC's Meet the Press is any guide, is it any wonder why the White House is fighting so desperately to keep classified as much of the Cox committee's report on Chinese espionage as possible? That report, endorsed unanimously by Democratic and Republican committee members alike, catalogued China's successful efforts during the last 20 years to acquire — by legal and illegal means — the most sensitive U.S. military technology, damaging U.S. national security interests in the process.
Mr. Berger asserted that the initial briefing about Chinese espionage which he received at the White House in April 1996 was "very general" and "very preliminary" According to Mr. Berger, that briefing, which was conducted by a group of senior Energy Department officials, including its chief counterintelligence officer, Notra Trulock, merely "indicated" that there was "some evidence" that China "may have" obtained "in some fashion" sensitive nuclear weapons information. "At that stage," Mr. Berger told NBC's Tim Russert, "we did not know who, we did really not know how, and we really did not know what" Later, Mr. Berger told Mr. Russert, "The FBI hadn't even begun its investigation. We did not have a suspect. We did not know at this point what they had gotten."
In fact, however, Mr. Trulock had begun his counterintelligence investigation of China's theft of one of America's most advanced warheads 12 months before briefing the White House. In late 1995, moreover, the FBI had already begun its own investigation, poring over travel and work records of lab scientists and building a list of five suspects. By February 1996, two months before briefing the White House, Energy Department counterintelligence officers had identified one particular suspect, a scientist, who "stuck out like a sore thumb," as one official told the New York Times. Before visiting the White House in April, Mr. Trulock briefed Paul Redmond, the CIA's chief spy hunter who had unmasked Aldrich Ames. Mr. Redmond considered Mr. Trulock's briefing, which was replete with charts and graphs, to be anything but "very general;' as Mr. Berger characterized Mr. Trulock's subsequent White House briefing.
It is instructive to compare Mr. Redmond's anguished reaction — "This is going to be just as bad as the Rosenbergs" who gave the Soviets the secrets to the atomic bomb, he recalled saying at the time — with Mr. Berger's laid back reaction to what he perceived to be a "very general" and "very preliminary'' briefing. Mr. Berger also asserted that the FBI began "a thorough formal investigation" within a month and "the CIA was [also] investigating this" In fact, however, by the end of 1996, so little progress had been made by the FBI that Energy Department officials were convinced the FBI had assigned too few resources to the case. And, according to Mr. Redmond, the FBI had not been updating the CIA's counterintelligence office.
Mr. Berger also asserted on March 14 that, upon learning of China's nuclear espionage, the administration "imposed and forced the strictest controls on China of any country except those for which we have embargoes, such as Libya" In fact, the administration did the opposite. In February 1998, the same month President Clinton belatedly ordered greater security measures at the nation's weapons labs, he ignored strenuous objections from the Justice Department, which was investigating Loral Corp. for an unauthorized technology transfer to China. Overruling the Justice Department, the president granted Loral a waiver for official transfers of essentially the same missile expertise to China that the company was being criminally investigated for giving to China without authorization in 1996. This expertise would help China build rockets that could carry multiple, independently targetable warheads — the very type of warhead whose design China had stolen and about which Mr. Berger had been briefed nearly two years earlier.
Mr. Berger also claimed that the order signed by President Clinton in February 1998, which mandated increased security measures at the labs, "made the changes I believe are necessary." But many of these changes, including recommendations made by the FBI long before Mr. Clinton's February 1998 directive, were not instituted until October 1998, after Bill Richardson became Secretary of Energy.
Moreover, there is a serious question even today whether security at the labs has been sufficiently strengthened. "Security at the Department of Energy [which runs the labs] has not improved" a recently retired U.S. counterintelligence official told Bill Gertz of The Washington Times last week. "Counterintelligence is poor." Rep. Christopher Cox, who chaired the select committee investigating China's acquisition of U.S. military technology, told Mr. Gertz that there is a "lack of adequate counterintelligence at out national laboratories, and, frankly, throughout the government."
Indeed, it was Hazel O'Leary, Mr. Clinton's first secretary of energy, who slashed the department's security and counterintelligence budgets. "Hazel O'Leary hated intelligence and security [efforts]" the recently retired counterintelligence official told Mr. Gertz. "She had this naive view there were no threats." Mr. Berger also rejected the claim by Congress that the administration failed to inform it in an adequate and timely fashion of China's espionage at the labs.
"Congress was informed, I believe, before I was in '96" Mr. Berger told Mr. Russert. "And I believe [Congress] has been briefed more than 16 times since then." That's the White House version. Here is what Rep. Norman Dicks, the ranking Democrat on both the House intelligence panel and the Cox select committee, told the New York Times: "Porter Goss" the former CIA official who chairs the House intelligence committee, "and I were not properly briefed about the dimensions of the problem. It was compartmentalized and disseminated over the years in dribs and drabs so that the full extent of the problem was not known until the Cox committee."
Indeed, it was Mr. Dicks who, having become so impatient at the administration's inadequate response to the Los Alamos laboratory spy scandal, approached Mr. Richardson and told him action needed to be taken immediately. Finally, the suspect who "stuck out like a sore thumb" three years earlier was given a polygraph test and found to be deceptive in February. On March 6, the New York Times reported the details of the scandal, and the suspect was fired two days later. Earlier, the Energy Department had for more than a year disregarded an FBI recommendation that the suspect's access to classified information be restricted. Here is Mr. Berger's disingenuous take on this: "[T]he secretary of Energy made a decision based on various factors relating to this employee that he should be terminated;' he told Mr. Russert on March 14.
It is clear Mr. Berger has no credibility. Rather than cooperation, he offers blame-shifting. Rather than credible explanations, he offers excuses. His utterly disingenuous remarks constitute yet another administration stonewall hiding the truth. If this is the kind of advice the president is getting from his national security adviser, the citizens of this country are being very badly served. "
=============
Thanks, Sandy ... rarely has someone in one of the highest positions in U.S. government exercised so much personal hubris and possessed such scandalous and debached character and consistently and repeatedly put the security of America and her people at such risk.
From the Bergler's bio at Washington Speaker's Bureau:
"America Fights Back: The War Against Terrorism
Berger was on the front lines of the fight against terrorism during the Clinton Administration --responding to terrorist attacks against our embassies in Africa and elsewhere and marshalling the resources of the United States Government in the effort to strike at Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network. Based on his direct and recent experience, Berger is in a unique position to explain to audiences the nature of the terrorist groups that have attacked us and the challenges and choices ahead for the United States. He will describe those clearly and candidly and answer the wide-ranging questions on the minds of the American people as America fights back.
Globalization: The Changing World and The Road to Success
As a leader who has operated uniquely at the intersection of international politics and international business for the last thirty years, Berger has helped shape the response of the United States and international business to the most sweeping force of our times—globalization. From dealing with the Asian financial crisis to driving U.S. negotiations with China as National Security Advisor to advising top global corporations as a leading international lawyer, Berger's insights about the impact of globalization on government, economics and business are invaluable. "Globalization is not a choice we make," says Berger, "it is an overriding fact whose benefits we must harness and whose consequences we must address."
==============
Makes you wanna vomit, doesn't it????
LOL! I guess time will tell whose crystal ball is the best!
You are exactly right. I followed "Watergate" as did many Americans. There was little else in the "news." Employees of the three (and only) TV networks featured Watergate night after night. Sometimes the entire 30-minute evening "news" was about Watergate. Nothing else mattered. Frenzy is not strong enough to describe it.
Never mind that E. Howard Hunt had revealed to a Congressional committee that he had been ordered to bug Goldwater's campaign (1964). I did not know that at the time of Watergate (1972-73). It is not something that employees of the mainstream would have reported. Nor would they have reported that LBJ had also ask his good friend and one-time neighbor J Edgar Hoover to bug Goldwater's campaign plane.
See http://criterion.uchicago.edu/issues/iii2/hore.html
Nor did the mainstream employees talk about Democrat dirty trickster Dick Tuck except in admiring terms.
In other words dirty tricks and bugging were done by both Parties and the mainstream media covered up the Democrats' crimes while getting off attacking Nixon for covering up.
There can never be anything as big as Watergate vis-a-vis Democrats as long as mainstream media employees are 90 percent Democrat Party activists pretending to be "journalists."
Fine. We have talk radio, one cable news channel, and the Internet. It is worth spilling blood to protect our free speech rights from the leftist pig vomit: our rights, their blood.
PS. Feral Gob'ment is a good one!
How can this be staged? Coincidence, yes, staged, no.
Plainly, sadly.....many Clymers don't even "try" to hide their allegiance anymore. They "report" from their mindseye myopic point of view....And the Sheeple buy it...hook, line, sinker...Heck they are already on the stringer, headed for the grill.
Alas, I fear for my country..I truly do.
FRegards,
In my prior post, I opined that there were certain points beyond which one party will not attack the other. I could be wrong. The GOP may be compromised (remember the FBI files) or just stupid. Or the Republicans are foolishly playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules against eye-gouging, groin-kicking street fighters. One thing is for certain. The Democrat run city machines from Pennsylania to Oregon are cranking up the phantom votes even now. If this election continues to be close, rest assured that the dead will come to life from Philadelphia to Portland. If the Justice Department refuses to confront this corruption forcefully, John Ashcroft will return to private practice, and George W. Bush will have plenty of time to clear brush from his Crawford, Texas, ranch.
Naaa...the RINOs who run the GOP will rollover as always.
Story successfully stuffed by the presstitutes. Back to sleep...nothing to see here.
04/19/04 - The Federal Election Commission has opened a formal probe into a star-studded Aug. 12, 2000 Hollywood fundraiser for then-first lady Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, Fox News Channel reported on Sunday. And some say the development is at least partly responsible for Sen. Clinton's claim that she's not interested in joining John Kerry's presidential ticket.Background:The allegations themselves are not new: Two of the event's organizers, Hollywood producer Peter Paul and charity fundraiser Aaron Tonken, have detailed a series of transactions undertaken in conjunction with Hillary's campaign that could violate FEC regulations, with Paul charging that the campaign failed to report nearly $2 million he spent producing the event.
But months before Paul was returned to the U.S. to stand trial in the stock case, Hollywood fundraiser Aaron Tonken began cooperating with federal probers. Tonken has said that he's a star witness against the Clintons in a federal grand jury probe in New York into Mr. Clinton's Marc Rich pardon - and has been cooperating with the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles who's probing his fundraising activities.
FEC Heat Hurts Hillary's VP Chances
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton surely hopes that history isn't repeating itself with the raid conducted by the FBI last month on another warehouse; this one chock full of documents from her 2000 Senatorial campaign."The documents were seized in a May 30 raid of a California storage facility containing documents of Peter Paul, the entrepreneur who funded Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign with over $2 million dollars in direct, in-kind contributions which were never reported by Hillary Clinton or her Senate campaign, as required by law," revealed the public interest law firm Judicial Watch in a press release late last week.
FBI Raids Hillary's Warehouse in Whitewater Deja Vu
The Bush administration has quietly done an about-face on allegations that New York Sen. Hillary Clinton broke campaign finance laws in 2000 - with the Justice Department preparing to extradite one-time Clinton fund-raiser Peter Paul to the U.S. as part of a plea deal for his testimony. The sudden action on Paul's case comes just weeks after reports surfaced that former Hollywood fund-raiser Aaron Tonken has supplied damaging testimony about Hillary Clinton's fund-raising practices.
"I'm a star witness against President and Mrs. Clinton," Tonken claimed in a recent report on his case in Vanity Fair magazine, explaining that prosecutors wanted his testimony about" "fundraising activities that I've done on behalf of the Clintons." The exact nature of Tonken's allegations against Sen. Clinton remains secret, the magazine said. But the celebrity moneyman is known to have been involved in the August 2000 fund raiser that is at the heart of Peter Paul's allegations.
Peter F. Paul, the flamboyant Hollywood entrepreneur who says Hillary Rodham Clinton has hidden almost $2 million of in-kind contributions he made to her campaign in 2000, is back from Brazil and promising to raise a ruckus about the New York senator as he fights bizarre securities and bank-fraud charges on which he's been indicted. Aaron Tonken, a political operative in Hollywood and a former protégé of Paul under indictment for a variety of alleged sharp deals with the rich and famous, also is promising to tell everything he knows about behind-the-scenes shenanigans of Clinton and many others.
Clintons' Fall Guy May Turn the Tables (Peter Paul)
Mr. Paul has substantial, documentary evidence detailing his close relationship with the Clintons and his funding of the Hollywood tribute, including cancelled checks, hand-written thank you notes from the Clintons, and photographs. Also named in the complaint is Clinton fundraiser David Rosen, Clinton friend James Levin, and Hollywood celebrity fundraiser Aaron Tonken, who currently is under criminal investigation for his role in other Hollywood fundraisers. As a result of Mr. Paul’s disclosures, federal authorities have launched an investigation into the Clintons and other matters. Mr. Paul, who is facing alleged (and related) stock and bank fraud charges, remains eager to cooperate with federal authorities.
And I heard on another thread that Berger's cell phone conversations were recorded...no indictment yet may mean there are bigger fish to fry (and them are some slippery fish, so they have to make sure the charges will stick).
Interesting.
The sequence is investigate, indict, bring to trial, convict. This situation is just beginning to develop. Federal indictments are possible only thru a grand jury in other jurisdictions an indictment can come from a judge as well.
It's only been a couple of days and already the jogger case has reached Laci Peterson status. I couldn't believe Geraldo dedicated his entire show to it on Saturday with so much other news happening. Can there be that many people that interested in these cases?
Yes, they hired that jerkoff congressman from Ca. that killed Shandra Levy.
Whatever happened to Chandra Levy?
Whatever happened to the politician involved? Out of sight, out of mind.
Precisely. The DOJ won't lay this out without convincing evidence.
Keep in mind that Berger could be charged with an assortment of crimes over and above the obvious theft itself.
On the plus side, there are witnesses, possibly videos, to Berger's thievery. Berger said he made cellphone calls....that could also be evidence especially if there were no phone calls. The absence of calls would reinforce Berger's malicious plan to rid the room of monitors so he could steal.
Berger knows that which is why he has already admitted to the crime (Clintonoids don't normally admit to wrongdoing).
The Bergler story is only away until the indictment comes down.......
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.