What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don’t need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
82 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35Uh, right.
You know, the lack of oversight and accountability IS the problem.
They are going after emails that prove GOP corruption and yet ANOTHER abuse of government policy. And once again the GOP lies, gets caught lying, and now we are in the whitewash stage.
As a right wing tool you spend a lot of time defending the ethical lapses, lies, and corruption of the GOP.
Here's another case.
Instead of persuing truth, you argue to just forget about GOP corruption.
You suck, traitor. You right wing ***** with a total lack of ethics and morals ARE the problem with our country. Shouldn't you have enlisted by now, coward? - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33Not that it's relevant, but I put leaking to help stop illegal and un-American Executive branch activities in a whole other category from the Executive branch leaking as an integral part of illegal activities.
If I had to choose, I'd take Leahy's kind of leak any day. He's a hero for standing up to the likes of Bush Sr. and Cheney. - deweyhewson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27I was just reading about Iran-Contra and I can say it's a damn good thing it got out into the open.
Half of Reagan's administration, including Bush Sr., should be in jail. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28And that has what do to with the missing email?
- polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25What is it like to not think, ever?
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23The emails are still around. There should be copies on both the sender's and recipients computers as well as on the server(s) back-up archives. The idea that 4 years worth of emails just simply vanished is total ***** and extremely likely the result of criminal obstruction of justice and willful destruction of evidence.
Even if the records were deleted, the people using the off-site mail servers for official whitehouse business are guilty of violating the presidential records act for failing to keep copies of their correspondence as required by law. In addition, since whitehouse communications are supposed to be done thru secure channels, the use of unsecured RNC mail servers is a violation of national security protocols. Everyone of the retards using the RNC computers for internal whitehouse communications should have their security clearance stripped. - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17@polyGone: A lot like being President or reading a teleprompter for Fox News. Take your pick.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Fact: You full of *****.
Fact: Clinton, Reagan, and Bush 41 fired all the US attorneys at the **start** of their terms as part of setting up their new administration. This is routine with a changing of the guard.
Fact: Bush orders the firing of 8 US attorneys in **mid term** who just happen to be conducting criminal investigations of various Bush cronies. Nixon must be smiling in his grave about now. - spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11There is ample and growing evidence that the USAs that were fired were let go because they either didn't prosecute enough Democrats or had the temerity to prosecute Republicans. This crime is called "obstruction of justice." There's also a little matter of conspiracy to commit a crime, if it turns out (which seems likely) that Bush officials worked to conceal the real reason for the firings.
Any President, including Bush, can fire any USA he wants to, but the way Gonzales goofed this up, it drew attention to the apparent prior crime(s). - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12FTA
""You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers," said Leahy, D-Vt. " - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15You keep using this word 'fact.' I do not think it means what you think it means.
- inferno10, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14It sure is ironic that, in 2006, Alberto Gonzales wanted ISPs to save lists of e-mail traffic. Bet he's glad that didn't happen!
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/internetprivacy/2006-05-31-internet-records_x.htm - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Actually, courtesyflush (apt name), let's take your example of my boss being able to fire me 24/7, because there is no job (in this country at least) where that's true for any and all circumstances.
In corporate America, if a boss asks a subordinate to have sex and then fires him or her in retaliation, that's not legal. If the employee blows the whistle on the boss and is fired in retaliation, also not legal. But if the boss fires him or her because the employee is stealing, then it may become legal again. It's all down to circumstances, otherwise known as shades of grey, aka reality.
And it's a great example that disproves your whole ***** theory. You can have the right to fire anyone "at any time" -- but if circumstances are extraordinary and unethical (even illegal), you'd best be careful to fire people for only the right reasons and document the hell out of it in case anyone asks. BushCo documented the exact opposite -- their intent to subvert justice.
The law on firing US Attorneys doesn't need to say that the President can't fire them to obstruct justice because there's already laws against obstructing justice. In fact, it should be common sense after Nixon earned an article of impeachment for firing Archibald Cox, who was at the time investigating top Republicans. It's not like there's no precedent. - InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+113 words: Presidential Records Act
The PRA statute requires that the emails be preserved. Even without a court order, the deletion of the emails was illegal. - spazoidspam, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13@rationalthinker
Have you even read about the scandal? The whole point is that the entire staff may be LYING about it. Yes Bush can fire and appoint them for any reason he wants, but the entire administration is trying to hide it and say that they were fired because of performance issues. That is the problem. Even if I was a republican I would be pissed, like many are.
What if your boss fired you after telling you every day how good of a job you were doing, because you went a different direction on recent project then he/she had recommended, even though your job did not require you to follow his/her recommendations, and then proceeded to tell everyone that called for a reference that he/she fired you because you sucked at your job. Wouldn't you be a little pissed? - stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Unless they were intentionally erased, which would be crime.
- AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@nix
I guess you don't know how to read and cut and paste supporting information or in your zeal to prove you point you made up the data and lied.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-09-congress-approval_N.htm
With 40% approving of the job congress is doing it's the highest it's been in a year. Congress did not get to be so disdained over night it's certainly not going to turn around over night. It's been a five year ride to where our country is today and you're going to hold this congress, while Dems hold a very minor majority vote, up as a do nothing? Heck, the dems only hold the Senate when Liberman gets up on the left side of the bed. Look at how the pork is being given: some to democrats but to the republicans as well it's a shame votes have to be bought but this is nothing new, get over it. Call it greasy democratic pork but the republicans sure knew how to fry it up these last 12 years allocating more than any other party in the history of the country.
But go ahead keep blathering, "Party over Country", isn't that how it goes. And please don't come back and tell me your a "real" conservative so we can't trust any of the parties and Ron Paul is our savior. I'm sick of hearing about it. While Paul might have a few good ideas the quickest way we can destroy this country is by destabalizing it's economy. I'm not sure the federal reserve is out to serve us either but hell; it's been around for two world wars and also seen this country into the most wealthy country in the world. Give me a moderate candidate because I'm tired of all the extremists Reds.
Your party failed this Country on both sides of the spectrum. Let's give this Congress a chance to succeed before we compare them to the last.
And for f#@k sake don't lie it just makes you look like an asshat. - spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I can't understand why the Democrats listen to this "surrendercrat" nonsense from morons on the air (leaving aside morons here). The war in Iraq was unnecessary and unjustified; the pinhead neocons keeping saying "six more months!" and then, six months later, say the same thing again; our economy is dragging from the cost of the war; members of our military are being killed without reason -- and we're supposed to listen to crap like "surrendercrats"?
Love your country more than your party, and then maybe you'll notice that the war in Iraq has made us weak and globally despised. - stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Lalaland is for those who choose to dismiss information out of pure partisan prejudice. Stick your head in the sand at your own peril, for your ass is exposed.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I don't know about the leak that took place regarding the Achille Lauro, but leaking info about illegal operations such as Iran-Contra and the attempted overthrow of a sovereign (albiet unpopular) government shouldn't count against him. In any case, whatever Leahy did in his past is not relevent to what Bush is doing now.
- FLUX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7xwagner I would not even in a joking or sarcastic manner threaten the President of the united states with death, even before 9/11 that was taken very seriously and secondly you may not like him ( I could not stand Clinton) but you respect the office the man holds
learn some manners people you can converse in a knowledgeable manner with out cursing every other word ( and it doesn't make you sound like an immature teenage boy ) - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@courtesyflush, You clearly have no interest in even trying to understand or debate the legal and ethical issues surrounding the case. You're just blowing smoke, so you're on your own.
@Nixfu, not only did the press fail to mention it, so did the Republican congress, the special prosecutor, and every one who follows Washington. This may indicate a) you made it up or b) it didn't matter. - InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Sandy Burger took copies of the classified reports. He left the originals. Also, he was charged and convicted for his mishandling of classified data. And finally, you're going to have to do better than dredging up a variation of the "But, but, but, Clinton...." excuse.
- gimpbully, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@courtesyflush
My boss doesn't have the power to fire me at any time, it takes a year of hard invested time to fire most employees in the UC system (and this isn't a rarity). I can't imagine a federal prosecutor's job has less job security than I. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@kiscokid, attacking the messenger doesn't change the message. Next you'll be blaming the missing emails on Clinton.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@kiskoid,
There was no "War on Terrorism" in the 1980s. And if Leahy broke the law, then you'd think a Republican executive branch would have taken care of that, seeing as how they're so "law and order" focused.
Turns out, Leahy was only blowing the whistle on illegal/criminal/unconstitutional activities by Reagan, so there wasn't much they could do about it.
Nice try though. - spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"rationalthinker"? Great name.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Gotta applaud the old man for being a critic of this Administration. He's one of the few Dems who is vocal about the ***** that Bush and his asslown cronies try to pull.
- stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@nixfu,
you said:
Ummm I WOULD...... If SANDY BURGER put the EMAILS down his pants that would explain **EVERYTHING**
Ahhhhhh the old Sandy Berger right wing myth, again. This will debunk it all:
Anatomy of a smear: Sandy Berger "socks" shocker; Lies, blind quotes, and innuendo rampant in Berger coverage
On July 19, the Associated Press was the first to report that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger for allegedly illegally removing classified documents and personal notes from the National Archives last fall during preparations for his appearance before the 9-11 Commission.
This much is known: Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, have said for the record that: 1) Berger inadvertently put several copies of classified documents into a leather portfolio he was carrying; and 2) that Berger put handwritten notes, which he had made while reviewing the documents, in his jacket and in his pants pockets.
But rumors and confusion abound in media coverage:
Media confuses originals and copies. As the story unfolded between July 20 and July 22, conservative pundits have run with speculation that Berger removed original classified documents, rather than copies, from the archive and then destroyed them as part of a cover-up. But there is no evidence to support this accusation; in fact, according to The Washington Post, "The documents removed were copies; the National Archives retained the originals."
Media propounds rumor that Berger placed documents in his socks and pants. It was reported -- notably by CNN -- that Berger put the classified documents into his pants and/or his socks -- allegations that Breuer has said are "false" and "ridiculous" and for which there is no on-the-record substantiation. This reportage was then amplified by MSNBC hosts Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, and Pat Buchanan; by the New York Daily News and the New York Post; by Ann Coulter and Kellyanne Conway; by a slew of right-wing columnists like Linda Chavez and Cal Thomas; and by right-wing radio show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage. Worse still, some of these same media outlets and media personalities falsely attributed to Berger and his lawyer the claim that Berger had put the classified documents into his pants and/or socks -- even after Berger and his lawyer said Berger had not done so.
Media confuses Berger's removal of copies of classified documents with his removal of his own handwritten notes. According to a New York Times article, the legal issue for Berger largely will rest on his claim that he removed copies of classified documents by accident. Berger's lawyer told the Times that the removal of handwritten notes is a "technical" violation; according to a July 22 Washington Post article, it is a "violation of Archives rules." Berger's defense is plausible only if the media asserts it accurately -- that Berger removed the copies of classified documents inadvertently in his leather folder and removed his own handwritten notes by putting them in his pockets.
Yet in media coverage monitored by Media Matters for America, these unresolved issues -- which are still under investigation -- metastasized into a portrait of a man who had supposedly stolen original secret documents to withhold them from the investigative authorities by covertly sticking them down his pants and in his socks. Only a smattering of "sources," unnamed government and law enforcement officials, and baseless assertions have been cited to back up this portrait. The net effect was seemingly to convict Berger in the media before the investigation has run its course and before all the facts are known.
MMFA has examined two main threads of the still-unfolding Berger story -- what Berger took and where he put it -- and has documented other dubious assertions, including outright statements of guilt, bizarre conspiracy theories, and comparisons of the Berger matter to the Watergate scandal.
#1: Berger stole original documents and destroyed them
9-11 Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg has stated that the commission is not missing documents. "This is a matter between the government and an individual," he told USA Today. "They were not our documents, and we believe we have access to all the materials we need to see to do our report."
Yet this statement did not end the speculation in The Washington Post and the assertions by Limbaugh, FOX News Channel host Sean Hannity, Coulter, and CNN host Tucker Carlson that Berger removed the documents in order to hide them.
In a July 21 article, Washington Post staff writer Susan Schmidt reported, "The documents that were removed were copies; the National Archives retained the originals." Yet, in the same article, she hinted at the possibility of a cover-up: "Even as Berger acknowledged his actions, it remained unclear the degree to which they stemmed from carelessness or an intentional effort to hide and remove the documents, along with notes of the materials he was reviewing." She did not explain how Berger would have succeeded in hiding anything by removing only copies and not originals.
Media conservatives were bolder, repeatedly claiming that Berger had removed and/or destroyed incriminating documents in order to prevent the 9-11 Commission from seeing them -- claims belied by the commission's own statement and by The Washington Post's report that the documents were "copies." (FOX News Channel host and radio host Bill O'Reilly was an exception here, saying, "I want to stay away from the speculation. But even so, he's not going to cover up anything because the 9-11 Commission had access to all of the original documents. They were going to see what Berger saw, whether he took these copies out or not.")
Radio host RUSH LIMBAUGH: The stuff that was stolen, the stuff that's probably now been shredded, the stuff that he just inadvertently, sloppily can't find, you know what the -- those documents contained? Elements of evidence that Al Qaeda was in the country in 1999. [7/20]
FOX News Channel co-host SEAN HANNITY: The only reason I can imagine that he would do this is to cover something up. And that would be that he found something there that made him, Bill Clinton, his administration, look bad, and that politics is being played here. That is a serious charge. And I don't know if we'll ever be able to get to the bottom of it, because who knows what happened to a lot of these documents.
[...]
Hannity's guest and right-wing pundit ANN COULTER: That's right. No, that's right. And if he is going to be engaging in a way, subjecting himself to criminal investigation and probably prosecution, they must have been pretty damning documents, presumably suggesting Al Qaeda may not have been the A-number one priority of the Clinton administration as they have been saying. [FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, 7/20]
CNN Crossfire co-host TUCKER CARLSON: [T]here is nothing random about the documents he took. Berger stripped the files of every single copy of a single memo which detailed the Clinton administration's response to the Y2K terror threat. [7/22]
MSNBC Hardball host CHRIS MATTHEWS also suggested a cover-up: What would be worse, he removed documents to destroy them and keep them from reaching public light as to the role the Clinton administration played or didn't play in fighting terrorism after the millennium incident back in -- back in the -- in the Clinton administration, or that he simply took the documents to help make a case for the Kerry nomination, the Kerry presidency? [7/21]
Notwithstanding Breuer's unchallenged assertion that Berger took only copies and his own handwritten notes, and notwithstanding the commission's confidence that it had access to all relevant information, FOX & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade described the issue of what was taken as "critical" and questioned the commission's level of confidence.
FOX & Friends co-host BRIAN KILMEADE: It is very critical. There were number of drafts of that report. It is some of those drafts that are missing. One of the government spokespersons for the 9-11 Commission says they are "confident" they didn't say they are sure. They are "confident" that they have all the documents. [7/21]
#2: Berger stuffed documents down his pants, hid them in his socks
At the beginning of the news cycle on July 19, the Associated Press reported that Berger and his lawyer said that he had put handwritten notes in his jacket and pants. By referring to "pants," rather than "pants pockets" this report fostered the impression that Berger had done something highly unusual; and by asserting that Berger and his lawyer acknowledged that this is what happened, the AP allowed the "pants" claim to be accepted as fact.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. [7/19]
In fact, contrary to the AP's suggestion that Berger acknowledged "putting documents in his ... pants," Breuer was quoted in The New York Times on July 21 saying that while Berger had put his handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets, "If there's a suggestion that he's shoving things down his pants, that is categorically false and ridiculous." Thus, the distinction Breuer drew in the Times that had been obscured in the AP story -- putting handwritten notes into pants pockets versus putting handwritten notes into pants -- was all but lost.
One exception came during a panel discussion on FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume: Roll Call executive editor and regular FOX News Channel contributor Morton M. Kondracke and National Public Radio national political correspondent Mara Liasson both made the distinction as they debated syndicated Washington Post columnist and FOX News Channel contributor Charles Krauthammer.
From the July 21 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume:
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it's not going to be a political impact, but it is a puzzle. What was stuffing in his pants and why?
KONDRACKE: You know -- you know, there is a part of your pants called your pockets! It makes it a little less nefarious.
KRAUTHAMMER: I don't know anybody who stuffs in his pants inadvertently. I mean he had a reason ...
LIASSON: Maybe it was his pockets.
KRAUTHAMMER: It would be interesting. And obviously, it was done in a way so that he would not be discovered as he left the room.
In much subsequent coverage, the distinction between the classified documents and the handwritten notes was also lost; Berger's "stuffing" or "shoving" of documents in his pants became the media shorthand for what had happened. Of course, if Berger had stuffed the classified documents in his pants, rather than putting his handwritten notes in his pants pockets, his defense -- that he had removed the classified documents inadvertently by mixing them up with other papers in his leather portfolio -- would be rendered implausible before the investigation could reach a conclusion.
LIMBAUGH: Ah, and I'm tempted to call this "Trousergate." [laughter] But I'm trying to keep this on the up-and-up. But since we're talking about stuffs -- the things stuffed in the pants, it's hard to even do that. [7/20]
FOX News Channel Hannity & Colmes co-host HANNITY: How many people do you know shove documents down their pants?
[Hannity was interviewing former Berger spokesman P.J. Crowley, who questioned his source for the characterization. Hannity replied that he had read it in the Associated Press and other newspapers.] [7/21]
Syndicated columnist CAL THOMAS: That Berger felt a need to slip some of the classified documents in his jacket and stuff others in his pants may say something about his true motive. [7/20]
In the July 22 edition of The Washington Post, in an apparent effort to clarify the muddle of fact and rumor to which the paper had arguably contributed, staff writers John F. Harris and Susan Schmidt compounded the problem. By failing to state clearly Berger's defense -- that he inadvertently mixed copies of classified documents with his own papers in his leather portfolio and that he placed his own handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets -- the story set up a direct conflict between Breuer's assertions that Berger inadvertently took copies of classified documents and the Post's assertion that "Berger was witnessed stuffing papers into his clothing."
The morning after the AP story was published, CNN reported on July 20 that Berger had put documents in his socks, making Berger's defense that he had taken the documents inadvertently even more implausible. CNN national correspondent Bob Franken reported, "There are two law enforcement sources, however, who tell CNN chief justice correspondent, Kelli Arena, that Berger was seen stuffing some of the documents in his socks."
When CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked Breuer about the socks story between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. (ET) on Wolf Blitzer Reports, the lawyer called it "categorically false and ridiculous." Yet the very next day, the socks story was either being treated as fact, with no on-the-record substantiation (the New York Daily News; NewsMax.com; MSNBC's Matthews and Scarborough; Ann Coulter; Tony Blankley; and Kellyanne Conway), or was the subject of credulous speculation (FOX News Channel hosts E.D. Hill, Steve Doocy, and John Gibson, as well as Linda Chavez and NRANews.com).
MSNBC Hardball guest TONY BLANKLEY, editor of The Washington Times' editorial page, described the effect: Look, CNN, which is not a tabloid, was reporting that they have some source, government source, saying he was putting it in his socks. There is a big difference between putting something in your pocket, which you can do almost inadvertently. ... And stuffing it down a trouser or in a sock, which obviously bespeaks an attempt to be covert. [7/21]
NRANews.com host CAM EDWARDS: Apparently the staff there in this secure reading room noticed Sandy Berger stuffin[g] his -- stuffing his pants and his socks and his jacket with items. [NRANews.com, Cam & Company, 7/20]
ANN COULTER: Right. I think that's the important question that no one is asking, what was he hiding when he inadvertently stuffed the documents in his pants and in his socks. And I know that liberals... Somehow they leave the room, and two witnesses see him putting them [the documents] in his socks and his pants. [Hannity & Colmes, July 20]
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: But Berger's bizarre actions -- including allegations that he stuffed some documents into his socks -- could not help but fuel GOP cries of a coverup. ... An Archives staffer reported seeing the papers sticking out of a leg of Berger's pants, saying "it could have been white socks, except that [Berger] was wearing a dark suit," according to a government source. [7/21]
NEWSMAX.COM: Law enforcement officials are contradicting denials from Sandy Berger's lawyer and two friends who say the former national security adviser never stuffed super-secret 9/11 documents into his socks during three or more visits to the National Archives last fall. Reports CNN's Bob Franken: "Three law enforcement sources talking to CNN's Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena [say] they saw him, or that he had been seen, putting documents in his socks." [7/21]
MSNBC Hardball host CHRIS MATTHEWS: Right, but you don't jam it in your socks though if that's what you're... [7/21]
MSNBC's Scarborough Country host JOE SCARBOROUGH: Day two of Sockgate and still no charges against the former Clintonite. ... What could he [Berger] have been doing with these documents that he reportedly was stuffing in his jacket, his pants and his socks? [7/21]
Republican strategist KELLYANNE CONWAY: And look, I'm sure it's never an opportune time to find out that one's national security advisor may be a thief. And it certainly is plausible that he innocently took those documents, but when you innocently pick up a file that doesn't belong to you, you usually don't stick it in your socks or in your pants. [FOX News Channel, The Big Story with John Gibson, 7/21]
Syndicated columnist LINDA CHAVEZ: Surely it was an innocent mistake, former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's stuffing classified documents into his pants, jacket and perhaps even his socks before leaving the National Archives building last fall. [7/20]
FOX News Channel FOX & Friends co-hosts STEVE DOOCY and E.D. HILL:
DOOCY: By the way, what was the name of the cat during the Clinton administration? ...Socks. ...Coincidence?
HILL: I don't think we know exactly where he says -- where he stuffed the documents. We've heard the briefcase. We have heard his socks. We've heard his pants. We've heard his coat. [7/21]
FOX News Channel host JOHN GIBSON: Did Sandy Berger purloin secret documents? Did he stuff them in his clothes, his pants, and even his socks to secrete the secret out of the National Archives? These are the facts that matter. [The Big Story with John Gibson, 7/21]
Internet gossip Matt Drudge and FOX News Channel not only reported the socks story but falsely attributed it to Berger and his lawyer. Hannity, Savage, Buchanan, and the New York Post made the same false attribution.
DRUDGE linked to FOX News' report claiming that "Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks." [7/20]
ABC Radio Host SEAN HANNITY: Now Berger, through his lawyer -- in typical Clintonesque fashion -- said he knowingly removed the handwritten notes, he placed them in his jacket, he stuffed them. ... [laughing] And he rolled them up in his socks. I mean, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this thing. ... But see, stuffing -- here's a former national security adviser; he knows the rules and regulations about this and there he is, stuffing his jacket, his pants and his socks and then -- quote -- inadvertently I took copies out in my leather portfolio. I deeply regret the sloppiness of sticking them in my pants, the sloppiness of sticking them in my socks, the sloppiness of stealing them. [7/20]
Right-wing radio host MICHAEL SAVAGE: Berger and his lawyer said last night, he knowingly removed the handwritten notes, by placing them in his jacket, pants, and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio. ... The Democrats would like that because it would go away. It would all be dismissed as just a-- sort of a prank. Sort of a college prank. That he just simply took top secret documents and stuffed 'em in his underwear. [Savage Nation, 7/20]
From a July 20 discussion between MSNBC host JOE SCARBOROUGH and his guest, MSNBC analyst PAT BUCHANAN:
SCARBOROUGH: Sandy Berger ... took highly classified documents and allegedly stuffed them in his trousers and socks.
[...]
BUCHANAN: Look, this man said that he inadvertently took them with him. But apparently, he stuck them in his socks, in his pants, everywhere on his body.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: But why would somebody like Sandy Berger do -- why would he go into a secure location, gather these documents, stuff them possibly in his socks, in his pants, in his jacket...
[...]
BUCHANAN: The likelihood ... is that he came across something that was so embarrassing or so humiliating or so incriminating that Sandy Berger put his career on the line. His lawyer said he put these things in his socks.
NEW YORK POST editorial: "[I]t wasn't just his pants into which Berger says he stuffed a bunch of classified documents to sneak them out of the National Archives: He crammed some into his socks, too." [The Post ran a screaming headline, "SOCKED."] (7/21)]
Finally, some media figures were not content to simply spread unsubstantiated rumors. MSNBC's Chris Matthews invoked Watergate. Others spun or revived discredited conspiracy theories.
MSNBC Hardball host CHRIS MATTHEWS: If you had heard about someone else, say, on the other side politically or anywhere else, someone on the Republican side, that someone had gone in the National Archives during the Watergate affair, for example, and had turned out to be taking stuff out of the room that they weren't supposed to, would you assume they were bad guys? [7/21]
CNN Crossfire guest ROB GRAY, Republican strategist: It may well be another Democrat who doesn't like Sandy Berger [who leaked word of the investigation to reporters]. It may be the first volley in the Hillary '08 campaign. He's a John Kerry foreign policy adviser. She doesn't want to see John Kerry win. [ 7/21]
[Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of conservatives suggesting that Senator Clinton wants Kerry to lose in November to clear her path to the White House in 2008.]
LIMBAUGH: One thing we can be sure of, ladies and gentlemen, is these missing documents will not show up in the Map Room of the White House like the Rose Law Firm billing records, unless there is a former Clinton administration official who can worm his way back into the White House and plant them there -- and Sandy Burglar, stay away from Fort Marcy Park [in Northern Virginia, where former White House deputy counsel Vince Foster's body was found after he committed suicide]. [7/20]
[Media Matters for America has documented other recent instances in which Limbaugh referred to Fort Marcy Park in an attempt to resurrect the long-discredited right-wing claim that Foster was murdered and that the Clintons were involved.]
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230001
***Right Wing talking point 773474377 destroyed. - DiggIz4Kids, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No War on Terror? I can't speak for everyone but the idea of getting hit with an ICBM during the Cold War terrorizes the hell out of me. :oP~~~
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That was the assumption of the whitehouse staff: use the RNC computers and leave no traces. The problem is that 1) it was illegal, 2) the records are part of whitehouse operations and are property of the government, and 3) Congress has subpoena power to sieze the records as part of a criminal investigation.
- DiggerXtreme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In this discussion is proof of why BDS hurts Democrats. Even if in this case they are right [for a change] everyone is suffering from Chicken Little syndrome and doesn't care.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I feel your Pain Accutron
But at least I can still have a little hope, some in congress and senate are actually trying to expose the Bush admin....I think!! - BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Analogous to "*****, shred all the papers quick!"
- Accutron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8As much as the Democrats bitch you damn well know they won't do anything about it. I lost faith long ago.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7If Bush fired the prosecutors because they were investigating crimes committed by Bush associates, then he's abusing power which is an impeachable offense. He's also interfering with and obstructing active criminal investigations which is also illegal.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Congress doesn't need a judge to issue a subpoena. Congress has its own subpoena power. But thanks for playing. Moron.
- tommybeeasy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The problem is that the core values in this country have shifted over the past seven decades. The expansion of the Federal government in the 1930s, albeit with the intention of alleviating the Depression, was the start of a move from priorities like individual liberty and protection from government abuses of power to concerns like security and public health. This was further aggravated by the hysteria surrounding the expansion of Communist influence immediately following the war. As evidence, I offer the push for limitations on Federal power in the mid 1990s. From welfare reform to military budget cuts, without an imminent threat, it's as if we all of a sudden reverted to our pre-1931 mind frame. Now, in the post-911 world, we have allowed fundamental liberties guaranteed every citizen, theoretically, since 1789, to be curtailed in the name of Homeland Defense. Habeas Corpus and governmental transparency are now empty concepts that exists only in our collective memory. To list a few recent transgressions:
1. Surveillance of Americans without judicial restriction
2. Invasion and occupation of a foreign nation with pretext or provocation(Iraq, not Afghanistan)
3. Refusal to engage in diplomacy with any nation who opposes the Executive Administration(Venezuela)
4. Restriction of individual liberty in the interest of supposed public good
a) The "War on Drugs" criminalizes some substances arbitrarily, while sanctioning and subsidizing others
b) Increasing the legal drinking age from 18, the legal age of adulthood, to 21, by tying federal highway funding to States' adoption of the mandate
c) Increasing police powers to "prevent" crime
d) Rise of imminent domain powers to seize private property without due process and compensation
5. Dismantling and offshoring of industries like Manufacturing and textiles, supposedly in the interest of economic growth, but effectually gutting organized labor and irreparably diminishing the Middle class, historically the most vocal champions of liberty
The list goes on.
In 1776, the colonial delegates declared independence from the English Monarchy for similar violations of what they saw as their unalienable rights. Thanks to them, we have already in place the means by which to rectify our current predicament without the need for violent revolution. Since it's our elected representatives are the ones who make the laws, all we have to do is change who we vote for, simple as that. All we need is an association of some sort, a party of people if you will, to lead us to that end. If we could assemble a movement dedicated to ensuring all citizens enjoy the liberties and privileges that is very much their birthright. People who are committed to resolving social disputes without immediately acting as if the only way to protect people is to strip their rights. Pragmatists devoted to finding the best solution as opposed to the easiest. For example, in the long term, a better approach to our dependence on chemicals would perhaps be taking steps to discourage it socially as well as openly discuss the dangers of addiction without resorting to fear tactics, which over the past 20 years have proved useless.
If this interests anyone, or you have any practical advice about organizing people, please email me at ttheodo2@gmail.com. The time for empty words has passed and I can't do it alone. Thank you for your time. - SamuraiPanda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3All this talk about firing for whatever reason you want and whenever you want... I don't know much about it honestly (I work in a lab, a little different from a company) but from what Ive heard, that isn't necessarily the case.
My mom works for Ford and she has been an IT manager for awhile now. She complains every now and then about employees that are just simply horrible at their jobs. My response is, of course, 'Why dont you just fire them?' The answer isn't as simple as you think. Apparently, Ford is afraid of being sued in case the employee was laid off because of non-performance related issues, so they can't simply fire people anymore. They have to offer employees packages to leave the company, and if the employee says no, they are simply shuffled among the different departments for awhile because nobody wants them.
As far as I understand, firing in America is much more complicated than it seems. And I don't see why Bush should be any exception. The president is not above the law. - swrostmore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Jesus, its bad enough when Bush apologists stoop to the "Clinton did it!" argument, but CRITICIZING Senator Leahy for exposing Iran-Contra in the 80's? Do you grade-school fascists even know what the ***** Iran-Contra was about? Leahy did a tremendous service to our country be bringing that scandal out in the open, and I would LOVE to hear anyone argue otherwise.The man has been re-elected for 37 years, consecutively, and I would venture to guess that the crooks he is going after today are some of the same people he exposed in the 80's.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Unless and until any of them have been convicted of a capital crime, I honestly don't think we should be encouraging any talk of hanging. I'm equally pissed off and can sympathize. But we're hoping to restore the rule of law here. I think you know that.
- stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What did you expect from the fringe 20-30% that still support Bush? I seriously think they are all mentally ill or in need of some serious therapy to snap out of their trance. Political extremists have an extremely hard time dealing with truth.
- stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The Dems are addressing problems by first exposing the Bush Administration's evident crimes to Americans. It's probably true however, that already numerous hearings and investigations may prove there are way more problems than in this country than initially expected. You can't sweep problems under the rug or just jump to action. First you must identify the problem no matter how uncomfortable they may appear, then you take action to rectify that problem. The investigative process is a part of the process of justice no matter how slow. The already apparent crimes have not been contrived, instead they have been committed.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Rationalthinker, you're on your way to being my first ban. Do you have anything rational or thoughtful to say?
Thus far, we would lose nothing by never hearing from you again. - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5he does when no one will listen.
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Maybe they should talk to Ted Stevens. At least he knows how the internet works.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Politicians are very slow animals. We have to wait a bit longer before we can really judge that.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Time to chase these ***** down. With any luck, by 2008-2009, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, etc... will all be behind bars and, some, in the Hague.
Haven't we all had enough of criminals in the White House?
---
On another note:
You know when the ultra-conservative supporters are scared *****, because they know you are right, when they pull out the Clinton excuse. - kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@mightydavefish
Blanket statements are usually false. They say more about the author's ignorance and detract from their subject. - Noxieas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@ o0ll0o
Except Clinton actually held on to the records in which he was being subpoenaed for, not make an impossible claim that they were deleted; I'm seriously sick of the b-b-but CLINTON! Get over it; if he or any Dem did this I would be as equally pissed.
As it was said in another thread, it wasn’t the crime that got Nixon in trouble, it was the cover up. Clinton was smart enough to just bite the bullet... not continue to lie, next time RTA. -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is