Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ginsberg: "Kerry Must Answer This ESSENTIAL Point Re: Sandy Berger"
My videotape of Fox Interview. ^ | 7-20-04 | Ben Ginsberg

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: benginsberg; bergertreason; cityofevil; cornell; electionlaw; fox; ginsberg; ithaca; sandyberger; sloppy; sockgate; soxgate; traitorberger; treasongate; trousergate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-208 next last
To: cricket

No reason for Kerry to look better than Clinton; and that is what these papers supposedly have to do with/Clinton Admin et al/Berger etc; their (non)-response to terror and no doubt,their NOT sharing the info with Bush.

We knew Clinton was determined to leave this presidency with as much damage as possible for GW to come into. . .as did even his minions destroy and trash the WH before Bush's arrival.

Clinton's crimes go beyond one's worst expectations; but not beyond one's worst fears.






Agree with you. I was merely conveying what another freeper had posted while 'brain-storming'.


161 posted on 07/20/2004 2:11:35 PM PDT by JulieRNR21 (One good term deserves another! Take W-04....Across America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: rintense
It looks like from what is being said; that this was an effort to hide some info re terrorists that the Clinton admin had; and did not respond to; nor; I would guess; did they so inform President Bush when he arrived at WH.

This omission is more than just protecting/creating spin; it would be treasonous in my book.

And yes, Kerry could/should be damaged for wherever he may fit in this puzzle; particularly if he was so apprised when Berger came to him as an employee to his campaign.

If he did not know. . .and I suspect he did. . .then he would want Bergers head on a platter.

Interesting to see; how Kerry responds to 'Berger's Sox'.

162 posted on 07/20/2004 2:12:01 PM PDT by cricket (The starting point for Liberals is the lie. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cricket

It is my understanding that it was 'note cards' with info on the classified Docs that he put in his clothing (jacket, pants & socks) ....not the actual Documents.

However, one is not allowed to make notes (in other words make hand written copies) of such highly classified documents and take them out of the Archives.


163 posted on 07/20/2004 2:17:38 PM PDT by JulieRNR21 (One good term deserves another! Take W-04....Across America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Why is Kerry surrounding himself with crooks, felons, and traitors like Berger?

Because Kerry is a filthy democrat and must hire other filthy democrats to work on his campaign. It's that birds of a feather thing.

164 posted on 07/20/2004 2:25:03 PM PDT by metalurgist (Death to the democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ChadGore
What did kerry know ? When did he know it ?

Finally, after 120 posts.

165 posted on 07/20/2004 2:32:10 PM PDT by metalurgist (Death to the democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
***it has to do with the KERRY CAMPAIGN***

PSHAW! Next you will be calling for Berger to be prosecuted!

...Imagine! Prosecuting a Clintonista! ...prosecuting a Democrap!

;-) FReegards,
IR

166 posted on 07/20/2004 2:34:21 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Berger's lawyer totally denying that that security in archives saw Berger stuff papers.. .anywhere. Why would they lie; he should be asked; but also; I have been wondering. . .

Why; if Berger was observed breeching security; why was he permitted to just exit like nothing had happened? Why have security there; if you can stuff it; or push it into your briefcase and they know it. . .and do not stop you.

167 posted on 07/20/2004 2:35:45 PM PDT by cricket (The starting point for Liberals is the lie. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

I TOTALY disagree....I think it IS the Clintons.....NOT Kerry...who is the REAL object.


168 posted on 07/20/2004 2:36:53 PM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JulieRNR21
"Agree with you. I was merely conveying what another freeper had posted while 'brain-storming'."

Well, just asked another question that has not been raised in the media; at least in the few interviews I have seen in the past couple of hours; and that is why Berger was allowed to leave if he had been observed stealing security documents?

I hope they interview one of the Security 'viewees' so to speak. . .

Berger's lawyer is now making the rounds on the news. . .incredible story teller. . .

. . .more incredible; if ANYone buy this sorry story.

169 posted on 07/20/2004 2:42:10 PM PDT by cricket (The starting point for Liberals is the lie. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: cricket
***why was he permitted to just exit like nothing had happened?***

Perhaps also pertinient: why hasn't the FBI yet officially questioned Berger? What exactly have they been investigating for months?

...bury this one in the inactive file... Democraps are immune. Phoo! The Clintooon sold our nuclear secrets to the ChiComs for campaign cash...

Boy! Alot sure came of that, heh?

170 posted on 07/20/2004 2:47:43 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: cricket
Well, just asked another question that has not been raised in the media; at least in the few interviews I have seen in the past couple of hours; and that is why Berger was allowed to leave if he had been observed stealing security documents?

Very good question......and here's another....Why was Bruce Lindsay, Clinton legal advisor called after Berger left and informed that Berger was observed taking stuff?

171 posted on 07/20/2004 2:47:56 PM PDT by JulieRNR21 (One good term deserves another! Take W-04....Across America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: JulieRNR21
"Very good question......and here's another....Why was Bruce Lindsay, Clinton legal advisor called after Berger left and informed that Berger was observed taking stuff?"

Thanks. . . I missed that; amazing. . .so Lindsey was called. . .good grief (saw his name mentioned; but did not catch the context as I was hurrying. . .)

I hope someone asks about this and the 'other' as well; pertinent and sensible. . .obvious questions!

When Bergers lawyer was whining his defense to Wolf Blitzer - Fox was not doing the story at the time; and wanted to see what Wolf contributed; he was, actually, very incredulous; but needed more questions - Berger's lawyer; must have referenced his client as a 'patriot' umpteen times; also whined - that they wanted to keep this private and not 'political'; (sure, they should enjoy such luxury); but was implying how mean and nasty Justice Dept was to have leaked this info. . .at this time especially. . .

Hope he is brave enough to talk over at FNC.

172 posted on 07/20/2004 3:00:50 PM PDT by cricket (The starting point for Liberals is the lie. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: metalurgist
My fantasy interview (will never happen)

Tim Russert:Why didn't you get rid of Sandy Berger when you found out that he was under investigation?

Kerry: I did

Russert: So Berger didn't tell you or anyone in your Campaign that he was under investigation?

Kerry: No

Russert: How do you explain such a lack of loyality on the part of a trusted advisor?

Kerry: AAAh... Sandy is a wonderful public servant who made a serious mistake.

Russert: Answer the question you weasel!
173 posted on 07/20/2004 3:02:00 PM PDT by RedEyeJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland
Another question while they whine about the 'timing'; would be the obvious; so 'why wasn't this investigation made public; given all the sensitive info Bush was pushed to disclose and release; only to have it analyzed silly in the media. . .

Yes, about the timing; why did it take sooooooo long?

174 posted on 07/20/2004 3:21:06 PM PDT by cricket (The starting point for Liberals is the lie. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle; JulieRNR21; rintense; Bob Ireland; hresources; Maigrey; Grampa Dave; All
"But if Berger were found to be acting on behalf of the Kerry campaign, I think it might be a different story. Then the press might go after it."

Info on Fox says Berger did this more than once! Twice apparently; and only after second time; did they notify FBI (first time; they called Lindsey).

In addition to millenium terror reportinfo; Berger also retrieved shipping port/ship 'security' issue papers.

Coincidentally, Kerry used such info in a major campaign speech - as to what needed to be done to secure shipping port security - almost immediately following the security papers disappearing into Bergers pants et al. . .

They are all offering ' not serious as there were copies; so what (?) - but where are they and 'who knew'. . .locked away with high security; far from public access. . .sooooo.

So why does that explanation imply absolution for Berger?

Berger needed the papers; the info; and he got them; it might appear that they helped save someone; and as well, may have inspired someone else.

Interesting if Berger was first 'serving' Clinton; and then unbeknownst to Clinton; serving Kerry as well.

175 posted on 07/20/2004 3:48:53 PM PDT by cricket (The starting point for Liberals is the lie. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; governsleastgovernsbest; bentfeather; gaspar; NativeNewYorker; drjimmy; Atticus; ...
"Mr. Berger received his B.A. from Cornell University in 1967."

Ithaca is the City of Evil.


176 posted on 07/20/2004 3:49:42 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave

Here's the article about lack of security at Logan.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103485/posts


177 posted on 07/20/2004 4:11:31 PM PDT by Milligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Shreds of what was the Constitution?


178 posted on 07/20/2004 4:42:22 PM PDT by catpuppy (Kerry-Edwards! The vet and his pet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: catpuppy

So what is that hanging on Ginzberg's lip.

Your great answer:

Shreds of what was the Constitution?


179 posted on 07/20/2004 4:58:12 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Soxgate, the Rat document theft that makes Watergate look like kindergarden kickball.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: JulieRNR21

"It is my understanding that it was 'note cards' with info on the classified Docs that he put in his clothing (jacket, pants & socks) ....not the actual Documents."

Of course the Democrats will use this to advantage. "The nasty Republicans were saying that he had file cabinets stuff down his pants. They are lieing! It was some small note cards (do I hear "post-its anyone) that he had."

There's a HUGE difference between documents and note cards - and the Republicans are spreading these evil rumors about Sandy.

And to a degree these statements will sound correct to the average voter. Something to be said about staying out of speculation on initial reports and causing the rumors to run wild.

HOWEVER - weren't some of these files MISSING from the archives, so the 9/11 commission did not have access to them? Maybe Sandy took files AND note cards.


180 posted on 07/20/2004 5:14:16 PM PDT by geopyg (Peace..................through decisive and ultimate VICTORY. (Democracy, whiskey, sexy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-208 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson