Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
To: Scholastic
Perhaps a practice run for things to come?
2 posted on
03/13/2003 8:09:49 AM PST by
ewing
To: timestax
ping
3 posted on
03/13/2003 8:11:52 AM PST by
muggs
To: Scholastic
Thanks for posting this. I can hardly wait to see how this will be spun.
To: Scholastic
"The Justice Department now concedes that it "fabricated a defense where none existed" in earlier opposing the Sanderses' civil action. It also concedes there is no defense for the 32 counts of federal lawlessness committed in pursuit of destroying a journalist and his wife." Gee, what a surprise that this occured under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, but not to worry, the end did justify the means (the skunk was reelected).
5 posted on
03/13/2003 8:18:52 AM PST by
anoldafvet
(This message brought to you by the USA, USN, USAF, USMC and the USCG)
To: kristinn
ping
To: Scholastic
This could be a good time to expose the Clinton cover up of terrorism. I just pray that it was not a cover up of a friendly fire incident.
My husband knew a woman on that flight. She was a neighbor that he grew up with.
7 posted on
03/13/2003 8:20:44 AM PST by
Eva
To: Scholastic
The United States government has declined to respond to the Sanderses' summary judgment motion "Rule 56.1 Statement." Incredibly, by so declining, U.S. Attorney Kevin Cleary has conceded that the Sanderses' 32 damning charges against his clients cannot be rebutted. World Net Daily huh?
This is extremely hyperbolic. How about giving us some facts?
I don't know anything about this case, and after reading this I still don't. I do know that there are other reasons not to respond to a motion.
Perhaps it wasn't worth doing because the motion was a minor point in a suit is that is certain to be rejected, just for one alternative explanation.
9 posted on
03/13/2003 8:23:03 AM PST by
mlo
To: Scholastic
I suspect that the current President of the United States seeks truth.
If so, our nation cannot be in better hands.
To: Scholastic
When did DOJ concede they fabricated anything?
To: Scholastic
BTTT
13 posted on
03/13/2003 8:26:59 AM PST by
Wurlitzer
(I have the biggest organ in my town {;o))
To: Scholastic
You have to wonder how much of this alleged coverup was designed to shield Al Gore, head of the Gore commission on airport/airline security. Would W keep the lid on it because of that or the debilitating effect it would have on the FBI?
To: Scholastic
Just another reason to dismiss WorldNetDaily as the information site for the lunatic fringe.
God, I wish they were liberal, it would make it a LOT easier to bash them.
To: Scholastic
I don't like it when our government lies to us.
I'd like to hear the truth.
NY even started a Citizens for Truth organization because 100s of people saw a missile.
There's way too many unanswered questions, as with the OKC bombing.
To: All; Scholastic; biblewonk
"One cannot underestimate the impact ..."Really? So, does that mean it's ZERO?
Coincidentally, I saw the same gaffe in a Sears circular yesterday.
26 posted on
03/13/2003 8:47:01 AM PST by
newgeezer
(We learn by trail and errror. :-)
To: harpseal
27 posted on
03/13/2003 8:47:25 AM PST by
Joe Brower
(http://www.joebrower.com/)
To: Scholastic
Having read extensively on this subject, I came to the same conclusion as most of those who have really looked at the evidence. TWA 800 was brought down by a missile, or possibly by two missiles.
So far, it is impossible to know whether it was friendly fire from US navy ships exercising in the area, or from Muslim terrorists in a small boat. It could have been either.
Clinton and Reno orchestrated the coverup.
Regretably this new break in the case will only add one more piece of evidence for those of us who already know that there was a coverup. It will only be seen at WorldNetDaily, FreeRepublic, and other conservative sources, and therefore will only be seen by people who already were aware of clinton's criminal corruption of the FBI and other federal agencies.
President Bush has already shown that he has no interest in exposing clinton's crimes. The media have already shown that they will cover for clinton no matter what he does.
So, predictably, this will never be publicized and will go nowhere. The government didn't answer a legal challenge? So what? No one will hear about it, and if they do it will only be meaningful to those already familiar with the case.
28 posted on
03/13/2003 8:51:13 AM PST by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Scholastic
Good news!
I am waiting for the day that they nail that bastard Kallstrom!
The TWA 800 disaster struck very close to home for me. The French Club students who perished, along with their teachers and chaperones, were from the next town over from me here in PA. I knew parents and grandparents of these kids. One chaperone was the wife of one of our doctors; his beautiful daughter also died that day.
Either it was a terrorist missile, or it was our own US Navy, on training in the area that fateful night.
The fuel tank baloney was Kallstrom's invention.
32 posted on
03/13/2003 8:58:06 AM PST by
Palladin
(Proud to be a FReeper!)
To: Scholastic
GASP!
I'm schocked. SCHOCKED, I tell you!!
Who would ever imagine such a thing could take place in the Justice Department and FBI, right under Janet Reno and Bill Clinton's noses?
Why, if they only would have known....
33 posted on
03/13/2003 8:58:11 AM PST by
Gritty
To: Scholastic
The Sanders' suit details the way this conspiracy worked and names those responsible. Again, the Justice Department has let these incriminating charges stand unrebutted: Should read:
The Sanders' suit details the way this conspiracy worked and names those responsible. Again, the CURRENT Justice Department has let these incriminating charges stand unrebutted:
To: All
I'm reading a lot of smack-talk about conspiracy theorists and loons willing to "believe anything". What seems to have been missed is that the motion for summary judgement went unchallenged. I don't believe the judge can deny the motion if the opposing side doesn't even offer up a defense, in effect an objection.
Now, I would agree that the implications of what the government actually aquiessed to may be up in the air, but the Sander's motion should sail through.
I can't imagine anyone not challenging the Sander's motion if they thought it was unwarranted. This seems to place a number of people in jeopardy of litigation and or the destruction of their carreers.
It could also open them up to criminal prosecution.
Dare I say that all of a sudden the conspiratorial mantle has just shifted to those who have believed the government's lies all along?
And might I add, where is _Jim anyway. Isn't he on duty?
48 posted on
03/13/2003 9:14:48 AM PST by
DoughtyOne
(Are you going Freeps Ahoy! Don't miss the boat. Er ship...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson