Add to this the fact that the FBI has yet to make a political corruption case against either a republican or demonrat in Boston, say in the last 50 or 60 years, and you kind of get the picture.
1 posted on
01/14/2003 4:02:50 AM PST by
ninonitti
To: ninonitti; Fred Mertz; MUDDOG
Odd that this Boston Herald article seems not to mention the Bush administration's refusal to hand over documents to Burton's committee.
Article dates the start of this FBI corruption to 1965 and blames J. Edgar Hoover. I had calculated, based on earlier articles, that it started in 1964, RFK's last year as Attorney General. Since RFK ordered Hoover to do things like wiretap Martin Luther King, and since this policy here involved giving favorable treatment to Irish gangsters in Boston, and since Kennedy-tied prosecutors were involved in the policy, I strongly suspect RFK gave the orders here.
To: ninonitti
But confronted with his own prosecution memo, which committee investigators obtained last year after battling with the Justice Department, O'Sullivan replied, ``You got me.'' Just another reminder how Bush/Ashcroft have demonstrated no interest, none at all, in confronting government corruption.
Too bad.
3 posted on
01/14/2003 4:27:11 AM PST by
RJCogburn
(Yes, it's bold talk.......)
To: ninonitti
7 posted on
01/14/2003 5:38:31 AM PST by
metesky
To: ninonitti; Boyd; Nita Nuprez; Shermy; OutSpot; Allan; Leper Messiah; Ol' Dan Tucker; ...
The FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility reached an ``extremely troubling'' conclusion in 1997 when it announced that no evidence existed showing informants James ``Whitey'' Bulger and Stephen Flemmi had been protected from prosecution. Why do these people 'trust' the FBI to investigate the FBI?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson