Posted on 01/04/2002 8:52:30 AM PST by editor-surveyor
There is something very wrong inside the Justice Department of the United States and there has been for some time.
Various newspapers are now reporting that under President Clinton, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was ordered to stand down on various terrorist investigations.
One of the most egregious examples is the failure of the bureau to investigate fundraising organizations like "The Holy Land Fund," based in Arizona, which allegedly funneled millions of dollars in donations to Middle Eastern terrorists.
Although the Bush administration has now frozen the assets of the fund, it was apparently allowed to operate for 8 years despite the FBI intelligence that was presented to Mr. Clinton and then-Attorney General Janet Reno. One bureau source told the press that Ms. Reno felt any investigation of "The Holy Land Fund" would lead to anti-Arab sentiment and therefore was opposed to such an investigation.
As always, Ms. Reno will not comment on any aspect of her tenure as attorney general that is at all controversial.
There is no question now that under Ms. Reno and then-FBI Director Louis Freeh, Americans were put at great risk. The Wen Ho Lee-Chinese espionage case still has not been explained, and the fact that the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists weren't even on the FBI's radar screen is about as frightening as Janet Reno's passion for political correctness.
The current attorney general, John Ashcroft, has made no attempt to examine Ms. Reno's bizarre behavior or update the public about the Marc Rich investigation or anything else. Mr. Ashcroft specializes in looking dour and stonewalling. While Congress is attempting to get documents about President Clinton's dubious foreign fundraising and FBI abuses in Boston, Ashcroft is refusing to cooperate at all.
And this isn't a political issue. Conservative Congressman Dan Burton and liberal Congressman Barney Frank have actually joined forces to try and pry this information from Ashcroft's hands. If that's not amazing, then nothing is.
The truth is that for nearly 8 years, the Justice Department has been corrupt and inefficient. Janet Reno botched nearly every important decision she had to make including Waco and Elian Gonzalez. Time after time, Ms. Reno refused to approve investigative initiatives sought by the FBI. And time after time, Mr. Freeh sat in his plush government office refusing to let the American people know what was happening.
Now Mr. Ashcroft is doing the same thing. There is no reason on this earth why the public should not know the status of the Rich pardon probe. Or the anthrax investigation. And what about Enron, Mr. Attorney General – are you going to look into that? Millions of Americans were hosed while some Enron executives made millions.
How about a comment on that, Mr. Ashcroft?
Really? Then who is,"The Great Pumpkin"? You HAVE to know in your heart that Bubba Bush is doing his damndest to sweep Clinton crimes under the rug,but just don't want to admit it. Kinda like a 12 year old hanging on to the belief in Santa.
Get a grip. You GOP cheerleaders are a bunch of wimps who can't handle anyone saying anything critical of the party. You can't defend Ashcroft's actions so you kill the messenger.
So many here throw that word around with reckless abandon.
Pragmatism is ugly. - It is a two-bit word for the far left's guiding principle (or lack thereof): The end justifies the means.
Is that what you really meant?
With a new administration, the option of a Federal Law Enforcement investigation and an actual federal indictment and prosecution exists. In the case of an indictment and trial in the courts, the media couldn't spin anything other than public perception, which would have no bearing at all on the verdict rendered by a federal court.
If Clinton were actually indicted, the media could spin all they wanted without affecting the outcome of the process. If the current DoJ isn't pursuing this, then something is wrong. What is apparently wrong is that the current administration is simply concerned with the outcome of the next election they have to face, rather than the duty they are obligated to fulfill after having been sworn into office.
Have you considered that? Having a President and AG shirk their duty because they might lose their positions in the next election as a result of their adherence to their oaths of office is unacceptable to me.
Hillary couldn't win an election for dogcatcher if her complicity in Bill's crimes were revealed in court. Letting the Clintons slide is risking having them regain the White House, or having Hillary build a long term career in the Senate. Any republican in office should be willing to scrifice his own career to thwart that.
All right. When do you plan to start? You haven't defended diddley doodah yet. All you've done is hurl an insult or two at people who are critical of your bigtime "conservative".
OhReally is a ratings slut, true. He's also late to the dance on this issue. Several of us here on FR have been critical of Ashcroft and have clearly articulated the reasons for our criticism. Forget that OhReally is trying to make hay of this and start your defense of Ashcroft. That defense is going to have to consist of more than a few "you're clueless" remarks if it's to be effective.
Tell us what Ashcroft has done to qualify as a conservative. Holding prayer meetings on our dime doesn't count. Tell us how he has done his job, but remember that he's been sniveling to Congress that he needs to set the Bill of Rights aside or he can't accomplish a thing.
Ashcroft looks about as "conservative" to me as his pal John Danforth does. Danforth spouts off a lot of pseudo religious nonsense, but when it comes down to where the bear stank up the buckwheat, he covered for Clinton. Ashcroft appears to be doing the same thing. Show us otherwise.
Don't understand why President Bush is protecting Clinton and his obviously incompetent administration's miserable and harmful to our liberty failures from full exposure and public discourse unless there is a move to gain greater executive power over the legislature and judiciary branches of our government.
Also, don't try to twist Ashcroft's recent legal actions to bring those responsible for the 9-11 attacks, or his valid attempts to protect American's from further terrorist attacks, into something based on a distorted view of the world and a distorted sense of reality. Ashcroft is going after any and all individuals who want to harm America and the American way of life. Those subversive activities involving foreign nationals are at the top of his list.
Your remarks that Ashcroft is wanting to set aside the BoR is ridiculous. Don't give me this crap about how the word "people" is used, instead of the word "citizen". If your a foreign national in America on legitimate business, or visiting for personal pleasure, you've got nothing to worry about. However, during time of conflict and war, as the case is today, it is even more important that the federal government have the abilitites to protect the American people from any aggressions attempted against its independence and sovereignty, from hostile forces and enemies of freedom, liberty and our Constitutional Republic.
John Ashcroft isn't John Danforth, but it appears you have a serious problem with people who have strong religious beliefs. I don't see any evidence that Danforth covered for Clinton and theres absolutely no evidence that Ashcroft is covering for Clinton either. This is standard conspiracy theory nonsense. Theres no hard facts, or proof to such scurrilous allegations.
Your trying to stink up the place with your trash rhetoric. Shove that crap where the sun don't shine. It's clear you're anti-Bush, anti-Ashcroft, anti-religous freedom, anti-Republican and anti-conservative too. In fact, I consider your remarks un-American. You sound like a liberal Democrat, a libertarian anarchist, or some form of dangerous subversive nut case.
As an American citizen, you have right to spew all the venemous rhetoric you want and I have every right to call you an gormless twit for doing so.
So am I.
I will start watching him again.
If she has anything, I wish she would publish what she has.
If our Congress has somthing to hide that forces them to cover up crimes, we need to know about it.
Won't happen.Bush the 1st was President when Ruby Ridge happened and when the Waco raid was planned. I don't remember who the AG was then.
A terrorist act is an act of war. When did prosecution of enemy operatives in civilian courts become our response to war? Since Clinton, of course. Don't you expect better from Bush and Ashcroft? Apparently not. You probably think those two are conservatives. What a hoot. I'll clue you in on something; the DoJ wasn't created to protect us from anything. It was set up to prosecute those who violate federal law. If Ashcroft is our front line of defense, we're doomed.
Here's an accusation: Ashcroft's first few cases, inherited from Clinton were the IBT seizure and the McVeigh motion for a stay. He handled both situations exactly as Reno had handled her cases, that is, he hewed to the Clinton line. What do you say about those cases? The IBT case was what earned him the moniker "Janet Ashcroft" among FReepers. Defend that one.
It most certainly is not ridiculous to observe that Ashcroft was fairly slavering over the Patriot bill. He wanted it desperately. Post a quote from him in opposition to that piece of tyrannical dreck if you can. You assume that I'm talking about equal rights under the law for aliens. I'm not. Aliens don't have a right to access to our courts in all cases. If they have violated the terms of their visas, they have no right to anything but a deportation hearing, no trial, no delays, no bail. If aliens are charged with terrorist acts of war against us, they have no right to a trial in our civilian courts, but only a trial by a military tribunal. That leaves Ashcroft, our "defender" out of the loop, doesn't it? It's absurd for you to even mention the DoJ and national defense in the same breath.
Ahscroft and Danforth are two peas in a pod. Both are publicly professing Christians who have made careers of politics. Danforth most certainly did cover for Clinton's DoJ with his sham of an investigation on the Waco FLIR evidence. I suppose you were busy on some Bush photo swoonfest thread for the week or so that Danforth's fraud was being discussed here. I'm a Christian and the public displays both those two frauds make of their Christianity offends me.
I won't respond to your dimwited attempt at insult, other than to say that I'm what you wish you could fool more people into thinking you are: a conservative. GOP pompom shakers are never conservatives.
Call me whatever names you like. You just reveal the weakness of your case when you do. You're right, I have a right to freely speak my mind on political issues. That right is protected from action by the government, not from other citizens. You're free to try to shut me up any time you think you're able. FRmail me and I'll give you directions to my house.
Reagan man indeed. Ahaha.
I don't think so.
But if the truth causes chaos, let's have the truth. It will be better than our Government continuing to lie to us and cover up thier crimes.
I don't know about you, but that impression is getting brighter every day for me.
I remember when a lot of us hoped the President just wanted to act like he was being forced to turn the documents over. That way the Democrats couldn't say he was trying to "get" Clinton.
Well, I guess he has made the Democrats love him.
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.