Norman, Hilary and Media Silence - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-16-2007, 05:43 PM   #106
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
it doesn't make sense.

dbs
What, may I ask, doesn't make sense?
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 05:47 PM   #107
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 PM
nice bait.
i'm not biting.

and i read all posts if you're on ignore or not, but only respond to posts that merit so.

dbs
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 05:55 PM   #108
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:02 PM
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 05:55 PM   #109
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:02 PM
If a post does not have merit, please call me on it and debate.

The most frustrating thing on FYM is ignoring someone's point.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 05:58 PM   #110
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


The explosive accusation is that, back in 1992, staffers for the Clintons intercepted the frequency of a cell phone conversation in which political rivals were discussing the possibility of bringing forth another woman who had had "sexual relations" with Bill. Hillary is said to have listened to the conversation, which, by that time, was against the law.


it's a good thing Bush has made such activities legal!

(i can't wait for the Republican freak-out when they realize they've just authorized Hillary to wiretap and torture anyone she damn well pleases)

all Hail Hillary, The Decider!
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-16-2007, 05:58 PM   #111
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:02 PM
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 06:03 PM   #112
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 PM
persident flabby and sister cellulite

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 06:05 PM   #113
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:02 PM
it worked, just as I predicted

I have cellulite too. I wonder if Ann Romney does?

It must get so tiring to be so perfect
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 06:10 PM   #114
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:02 PM
strech marks

from carrying and slinging out those missionary babies
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 10-18-2007, 05:54 PM   #115
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 PM

Back to the topic:

Sandy Berger and the Clinton Cover-Up - Why It Matters
By Ronald A. Cass

On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation's most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.

Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it.

What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for?

Recently, the Board of the DC Bar, which had granted Berger his license, began asking those questions. There was only one way to stop that investigation, to keep from answering questions about what he did and why he did it, to keep the Bar from questioning his colleagues in the Clinton Administration about what had been in the documents Berger destroyed.

Berger took that step, surrendering his license, and stopping the investigation.

Ordinarily, anyone who has spent the time, effort, and money needed to master one of the "learned professions" fights with the utmost determination to keep his license. That is not merely a ticket to practice your chosen profession - it is also a badge of honor and accomplishment. Ask any doctor or lawyer, any architect or CPA, any professional at all, what it means to give that up.

That Berger didn't fight speaks volumes.



*******

President Clinton designated Berger as his representative to the 9/11 Commission and related hearings, which gave Berger special access to highly classified documents in the National Archives relating to the Clinton Administration's handling of al-Qaeda and similar terror threats. Berger got around rules requiring that the documents only be reviewed with Archives' employees present, purposefully stole documents, destroyed them, and lied about it all. When caught, he first blamed Archives employees for misplacing the documents, then admitted having taken them inadvertently (this is the point at which he cut the plea deal), and finally acknowledged what was obvious from the facts that were emerging - he intentionally removed and destroyed documents.

Justice Department officials who investigated the missing documents initially were persuaded that Berger must, as he claimed, have taken documents by mistake and then destroyed them to avoid having sensitive material in his possession. The plea agreement was based on the assumption that Berger was mishandling classified material - not manhandling it.

Now, however, it is clear that there was nothing innocent or inadvertent in Berger's conduct. He has something to hide and, whatever it is, he was terrified that at least some part of it would come out of a non-criminal hearing before the Bar. With no possible criminal charges to face, he could not have claimed a right against self-incrimination. He could no longer get away with saying that he took documents accidentally, took them only to prepare for up-coming hearings (why, then, take five copies of one memo?), or didn't intend to destroy them. He would, in other words, have had to say more than he has so far.

*******
We don't know with any certainty what is missing, which papers exactly are gone, or what notes - and whose notes - may have been on them. Berger's lawyer asserted that the 9/11 Commission had copies of all the material Berger stole and destroyed. But if that is so, why would Berger risk so much to destroy it and be so keen today on avoiding any real inquiry into what he did?

Berger had access to Archives documents that could be critical to understanding what information the Clinton Administration had, what options it considered, and what decisions it took on these sensitive subjects. In addition to primary documents, Berger had access to copies, and the only plausible reason for taking five copies of a single memo is that some had original notes on them from key officials, maybe from Berger or President Clinton.

For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.

The most likely explanation is that the material Berger destroyed points to a terrible mistake by Berger himself, by President Clinton, or by both. In dealing with al-Qaeda, did they overlook a critical piece of information or miss a chance to stop 9/11? Did the Administration's failure to take a more aggressive posture encourage al-Qaeda's later attacks?

When Fox News' Chris Wallace raised the possibility that Clinton's Administration might have done something more to prevent 9/11, Bill Clinton went into an inexplicable rage on national television. Wallace touched a nerve. So did the DC Bar.

Knowing what information Berger destroyed also might alter views of the current Bush Administration. Was the early support from both Bill and Hillary Clinton for going to war against Saddam based on something we don't know yet that was available to insiders in the Clinton Administration? Was it something that could come back to haunt Hillary and ruin her chances of winning Bill's third term?

Whatever it was, it's likely that what Berger destroyed could have helped us understand what led to the most tragic terror attack in our nation's history and perhaps also help us decide what course - and what Chief Executive - will best to protect our future. The fact that Berger has been able to avoid revealing that information is a scandal of its own.

The only person who knows what information was lost is Sandy Berger. And he isn't talking.

*******
What is at stake is more than what we think and say about Sandy Berger. It is more than the legacy of Bill Clinton and of George W. Bush. It is more than the prospects for Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats' presidential nominee and ultimately the President. All of these, of course, are wrapped up in this story.

Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well. That should concern all whose lives and loved ones may be at risk if our nation follows the wrong path, not knowing everything that should inform our judgments. It should concern all who respect the law, all who have labored as lawyers and judges, as honorable government officials and voices for even-handed justice.

Sadly, this story doesn't interest the Justice Department, which disposed of the criminal charges leniently based in part on false information from Berger. When faced with the fact that Berger had access to original documents on two occasions before Archives' employees became suspicious enough to start marking documents, the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken - they asked Berger if he had taken anything during those visits, he said no, and they let the matter rest.

The story doesn't interest the Democrats in Congress, who prefer spending time investigating why eight political-level appointees were fired - a misstep by the Bush Justice Department that provides more promising political fodder than one that might point back to the Clintons.

The Sandy Berger story doesn't interest the mainstream news media, probably for the same reason. The media elites, so keen in other settings on the people's right to know, don't want to know about this. Maybe if this story involved a Karl instead of a Sandy . . .

Maybe some day someone will step back and wonder why a successful lawyer like Berger would take so drastic a step as surrendering his law license just to evade questions. Someone will ask what could have been so terrible that it was worth that price to keep it hidden. Someone will decide that it's important to know what Mr. Berger is hiding.

Because, in truth, it could affect us all.

Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and Author of “The Rule of Law in America".
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-18-2007, 05:55 PM   #116
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:02 PM
back to the topic?

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 09:34 AM   #117
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
back to the topic?

An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton

Denny Henry / EPA
HILLARY CLINTON: The senator's campaign drew substantial donations from New York's Chinatown.
The candidate's unparalleled fundraising success relies largely on the least-affluent residents of New York's Chinatown -- some of whom can't be tracked down.
By Peter Nicholas and Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 19, 2007
NEW YORK -- Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.

And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

Related
- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Pres. Clinton's plans for ex-Pres. Clinton
- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on McGovern endorsement
- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Clinton's Iraq remarks
- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Iowa's voting record on women
- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Clinton's Iraq remarks

Related Stories
- Not all Hsu-linked funds are rejected

- On policies, Clinton plays it safe
- Clinton outpaces Obama in money race
- Hsu is accused of Ponzi scheme

- Hsu thrived in 'bundling' system
- Campaigns feel the effects of Hsu case

- At Wal-Mart, Clinton didn't upset any carts

All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.

Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.

Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.

The other piece of the strategy involves holding out hope that, if Clinton becomes president, she will move quickly to reunite families and help illegal residents move toward citizenship. As New York's junior senator, Clinton has expressed support for immigrants and greater family reunification. She is also benefiting from Chinese donors' naive notions of what she could do in the White House.

Campaign concerns

As with other campaigns looking for dollars in unpromising places, the Clinton operation also has accepted what it later conceded were improper donations. At least one reported donor denies making a contribution. Another admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.

Clinton aides said they were concerned about some of the Chinatown contributions.

"We have hundreds of thousands of donors. We are proud to have support from across New York and the country from many different communities," campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said. "In this instance, our own compliance process flagged a number of questionable donations and took the appropriate steps to be sure they were legally given. In cases where we couldn't confirm that, the money was returned."

The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.

And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef -- that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.

Of 74 residents of New York's Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.

Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Some said they wanted help on immigration concerns. And several spoke of the pride they felt by being associated with a powerful figure such as Clinton.

New take, old game

Beyond what it reveals about present-day campaign fundraising, Chinatown's newfound role in the 2008 election cycle marks another chapter in the centuries-old American saga of marginalized ethnic groups and newly arrived immigrants turning to politics to improve their lot.

In earlier times, New York politicians from William "Boss" Tweed to Fiorello LaGuardia gained power with the support of immigrants. So did politicians in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago and other big cities.

Like many who traveled this path, most of the Chinese reported as contributing to Clinton's campaign have never voted. Many speak little or no English. Some seem to lead such ephemeral lives that neighbors say they've never heard of them.




SINGLE PAGE 1


for those interested in reading the entire article- here's the link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...la-home-center
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 03:44 PM   #118
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 PM

Clinton supporter going to jail:

Democratic Fundraiser Norman Hsu Sentenced to 3 Years in Calif. Fraud Case
Friday, January 04, 2008

E-Mail Print Digg This! del.icio.us
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — A judge on Friday sentenced disgraced political donor Norman Hsu to three years in state prison after rejecting the one-time Democratic rainmaker's bid to throw out a 16-year-old fraud conviction.

Hsu's lawyers had asked Superior Court Judge Stephen Hall to dismiss his 1992 no contest plea, arguing his right to a speedy trial was violated because authorities weren't actively pursuing him during his years as a fugitive. They could easily have arrested Hsu, his lawyers argued, at one of the fundraisers he hosted in California for prominent local politicians.

Hsu also faces federal fraud charges in New York.

His troubles began dogging Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other big-name Democrats last summer when news reports revealed he was a fugitive who fled the state before he was sentenced for the 1992 fraud conviction. He turned himself in on Aug. 31 -- then fled again.

He was recaptured in September in Colorado after he tried to kill himself by overdosing on drugs aboard an eastbound Amtrak train. Hsu has since been held without bail in a Redwood City jail.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 09:28 PM   #119
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 PM

Great article about who Hillary and Bill really are:

Dear Mr. Obama;

You’re right. Your assertion from the past week is absolutely correct. You ARE running against “both Clintons.”



US Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-IL) is pictured during a roundtable discussion with women in Columbia, South Carolina, January 25, 2008. The next Presidential Primary will be held in South Carolina on January 26. REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA) I’ll address “both Clintons” in a moment. First, let me congratulate you and thank you for staying “above board,“ and conducting a mostly honorable and positive campaign.

Given my previous criticisms of some of your ideas, in this and other publications, you might be surprised to find me being complimentary now. But this gets to an important point: I can disagree with your ideas, while still respecting your conduct. And at this moment I’m commenting on your conduct.

Unlike some “black leaders” (self-appointed as they may be) of our day, you seem to be running a campaign that is generally devoid of the race baiting rhetoric that has become commonplace. And while I’m sure that you have experienced plenty of prejudice and bigotry in your lifetime, I don’t sense that you assume yourself to be a victim merely because of your skin color, or that you would assume me to be your perpetrator merely because of mine. This is very refreshing, and I’m grateful for it.

Similarly, I’m impressed that you and your wife Michelle seem to be contented and confident in your respective rolls. A well educated and accomplished professional in her own right, Michelle appears to be comfortable with the reality that you are campaigning for the presidency, and she is not. Based on what we can observe publicly, it seems that the Obama family simply “is what it is,” regardless of whether or not “it” is politically expedient at any given moment. This, too, is refreshing. It’s good for you, your family, and our country.

Now, about the Clintons. Yes, it’s tragic what they are doing, both to you, and to your party. As for you, they have most certainly distorted your position on the war in Iraq, and your statements about President Reagan. As for the party, they have made key issues of race and gender, and have enflamed racial tensions that some people didn’t know existed. But surely you can’t be surprised by this - - can you?

Let’s examine some of what’s happened. Earlier this month, after several days of Bill trashing your character, complete with the “fairy tale” and “hit job” accusations, you finally called him on it. Shortly thereafter, we saw Bill speaking in a black church claiming “I kind of like seeing Barack and Hillary fighting” - - his clever, passive way of implying that he isn‘t in the fight himself.

Then, after yet another week of Bill assaulting you and distorting your record, complete with his repeated, grotesque, red-faced tirades before the tv cameras, Hillary got “emotional” again - - claiming reluctantly that she’s been attacked by you, and then in her oh-so regretful tone of voice stating that she has no other choice but to “counterpunch.”

Mr. Obama, are you surprised by any of this? I’m younger than you are, and I remember the politics of the 1990’s all too well. Surely you must also remember.

Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are the merciless masters of misinformation. The veracity of their assertions and subtle implications, and the damage that they might bring about at any given moment, doesn’t matter - - their “story” will change later, anyway. What matters for the Clintons is what they can accomplish politically for themselves, in the moment. This was the politics of the Clintons’ White House, and it is now the politics of the Clintons’ campaign to destroy you.

And as much as you have tried to not make your ethnicity an issue in your campaign, it matters. Especially for the Clintons. While Bill likes to fancy himself as America’s “first black President,” and Hillary thinks that nobody has done more for the cause of “civil rights” than herself, you symbolize something very unnerving to them. You’re the accomplished, confident black man from a younger generation who doesn’t need their help. Worse yet, you have the “audacity” to challenge their authority. You obliterate their long-held stereotype, and threaten to obliterate an entire political paradigm. You endanger the old-school politics of the Clintons.

But doesn’t this ultimately lead us to your concept of the “politics of hope,” Mr. Obama? When the Clintons speak of “change,” they’re merely speaking of an end to Republican rule and their own return at White House. For you, it seems that “change” and “hope” mean a departure from the Clintons’ duplicitous, deceitful politics of personal destruction. Tell us more about that, Mr. Obama. And feel free to tell us how the Clintons’ “good candidate / bad candidate” gamesmanship appears from your vantage point.

And regardless of how your campaign ends, I believe that your candidacy has already accomplished great things. Ultimately, I believe that American politics will be better-off when your party relinquishes itself from the Clintons’ stranglehold, and I hope that happens sooner rather than later.

But not matter how these next several weeks unfold, be strong. And remember, Mr. Obama. You’re right.
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com