Hmmm... why no cry from the left

"Berger took COPIES out, not originals. Not good. Bad Sandy. Lose your law license. What else should be done? Well, the DOJ has the people and they sure as hell are partisan enough if they wanted to dig further. "

Cardinal... he did not lose his license. THAT is the point. He just gave it up two weeks ago. IF all he took was copies... then WHY would he do that? This seems to be the point that no one on the left wants to answer.
 
I don't think those on the right want all the details out in the open either. That is mine and Darla's point.

Perhaps he was working for Rove destroying documents that would incriminate the right....
 
"Do you really believe he "got off" via the BUSH justice department, and they don't know if he destroyed anything and what it was?"

There is obviously SOMETHING that is being hidden. Otherwise he would not be fearful of questioning by the Bar.

"SF. Damo. Boys are so naive. "

Great... a sexist remark.... just what every thread needs ;)

"The whole thing stunk to high heaven when it happened. But there's a reason the Republican led Congress, and the Bush Justice Department, the most political Justice Department we've had, didn't do anything about it."

and WHAT is that reason??? Is it that they did not know about everything Berger took and don't want yet another embarrassment? Or is it something that both Bush and Clinton don't want us to know about???

"As for "crying about it". I did. When it first happened, several years ago. A lot has happened since then. And I've had other things to cry about."

THIS JUST HAPPENED. Less than 3 weeks ago. Which AGAIN leads to the question... what is Berger hiding that no one knows about yet??? Why is it those of you on the left seem to not want to find out the answer to this???
 
Or is it something that both Bush and Clinton don't want us to know about???

//

I figure that likely to be the case.
 
"So, one of two things. What the Republican Justice Dept says is true, "Zero National-security exposure", and that's why they let him plea and gave him a fine. Or, the Republican Justice Dept is lying. In which case, whatever Berger took, it benefits both parties to keep on the QT. I always thought it was somewhat possible that he was taking something that covered his ass in the Clinton adminstration, but at the same time, it was information that would also reflect badly on the bush administration. Because, that, would explain it all."

Darla... I think it is option number two. There is something in there that neither want us to see. Which should be even MORE reason for us to find out. Somehow I doubt this has national security implications as they could have simply left it in the secure facility. This is something that embarasses both Clinton and Bush.... which is why Berger should be forced to testify to the Bar. He cannot be punished as he already has a deal with the DOJ... so lets hear what he is hiding.
 
Superfreak said:
"2) Your Huff post link, is a link to Powerline blog. An ultra rightwing partisan site. Again, you're directing me to partisan, rightwing opinion sites and blogs to support your postion.

The Bush Justice Department says case closed. Unless you can provide mainstream and relatively non-partisan sources to back your contention, I consider this thread closed, and another hilarious example of faux outrage. "

So a LEFT WING site like Huff post includes the article and you still ignore it. I also posted the Investors Business Daily site.

Bottom line... you are dodging the point. There is NO arguing that he just gave up his law license. That is fact. So ignore the rest of the articles if the fact that they are not left enough for you. The main point is one you cannot dodge. He voluntarily gave up his law license to avoid answering questions from the Bar Association. WHY???? WHAT IS HE HIDING???

But please, continue to try to ignore this... It is quite evident that you are hypocritical.

It is very apparent that you only care about the illegal activities if they have an (R) after their name. I am sure it wasn't anything important Berger was hiding... it isn't that hard to obtain a law license, so no big deal when a lawyer gives it up simply to avoid answering questions.
Click to expand...

Again, the link on huffpost was to an ultra rightwing blog. Please don't ask me to form an opinion on Berger based on what a rightwing blog says. I don't ask you to take michael moore's word for anything.

The Bush Justice Department says case closed. There's no more facts that warrant further investigation. It's not like the Bush Justice Department is an eager co-conspirator in letting Democrats off the hook for egregious violations of national security.

Methinks you're making a mountain out of a molehill, for strictly partisan reasons. ;)
 
"Exactly. That's what I meant, when I said that Damo and SF were being naive. I don't even believe that these people really dislike each other. I think it's all a big show. If we ever knew everything about 9/11 and the years leading up to it, I figure there could be riots in the streets. But we never will know."

If that is what you meant, then I agree 100%. Which is why I have been laughing at people like Desh for acting as if it is only Republicans.
 
Superfreak said:
"So, one of two things. What the Republican Justice Dept says is true, "Zero National-security exposure", and that's why they let him plea and gave him a fine. Or, the Republican Justice Dept is lying. In which case, whatever Berger took, it benefits both parties to keep on the QT. I always thought it was somewhat possible that he was taking something that covered his ass in the Clinton adminstration, but at the same time, it was information that would also reflect badly on the bush administration. Because, that, would explain it all."

Darla... I think it is option number two. There is something in there that neither want us to see. Which should be even MORE reason for us to find out. Somehow I doubt this has national security implications as they could have simply left it in the secure facility. This is something that embarasses both Clinton and Bush.... which is why Berger should be forced to testify to the Bar. He cannot be punished as he already has a deal with the DOJ... so lets hear what he is hiding.
Click to expand...
I'm all for it. But the brokers are going to attempt to sweep this under the rug. The only way for it to happen now is if places like this increase awareness and there is an actual outcry for information.

He timed this well, during election times avoiding embarrassment is paramount.
 
"Again, the link on huffpost was to an ultra rightwing blog. Please don't ask me to form an opinion on Berger based on what a rightwing blog says. I don't ask you to take michael moore's word for anything. "

AGAIN... since you seam to be reading impaired....

1) The site ALSO gave a link to the Investors Business Daily site... which is hardly right wing.

2) The link was POSTED BY A LEFT WING SITE.... NOW WHY WOULD A LEFT WING SITE ALLOW SUCH A LINK TO EXIST???

"The Bush Justice Department says case closed. There's no more facts that warrant further investigation. It's not like the Bush Justice Department is an eager co-conspirator in letting Democrats off the hook for egregious violations of national security. "

I think you are completely wrong here. There obviously IS more information and it IS highly relevant, otherwise Berger would not have given up his license. Also, I think there is something that embarasses Bush as well here and thus the Reps probably ARE conspirators in this cover up.

"Methinks you're making a mountain out of a molehill, for strictly partisan reasons"

I think both parties are walking hand in hand on this.
 
Superfreak said:
I think both parties are walking hand in hand on this.
Click to expand...

Like the illegal donations for campaigns from foreign governments...

I'll never forget, "There is no controlling legal authority."

Which means in regularspeak, "No cop can arrest me so go spit!"
 
"I'm all for it. But the brokers are going to attempt to sweep this under the rug. The only way for it to happen now is if places like this increase awareness and there is an actual outcry for information.

He timed this well, during election times avoiding embarrassment is paramount."

Agreed. Which is why I posted this to begin with. Unfortunately too many on the left see this as an attack on just them. Darla and US are on the right track. We just need to get more people on board. Bush should really push for this to come out. He only has the diehards supporting him now anyway... so it could hardly hurt him.
 
"Like the illegal donations for campaigns from foreign governments...

I'll never forget, "There is no controlling legal authority."

Which means in regularspeak, "No cop can arrest me so go spit!"


exactly. They all think they are above the law... and they get away with it because they turn the majority of the country against each other down party lines.
 
Personally I wonder if the whole Gonzales thing might not link to this as well. Everything seems to run together.
 
Superfreak said:
"Again, the link on huffpost was to an ultra rightwing blog. Please don't ask me to form an opinion on Berger based on what a rightwing blog says. I don't ask you to take michael moore's word for anything. "

AGAIN... since you seam to be reading impaired....

1) The site ALSO gave a link to the Investors Business Daily site... which is hardly right wing.

2) The link was POSTED BY A LEFT WING SITE.... NOW WHY WOULD A LEFT WING SITE ALLOW SUCH A LINK TO EXIST???

"The Bush Justice Department says case closed. There's no more facts that warrant further investigation. It's not like the Bush Justice Department is an eager co-conspirator in letting Democrats off the hook for egregious violations of national security. "

I think you are completely wrong here. There obviously IS more information and it IS highly relevant, otherwise Berger would not have given up his license. Also, I think there is something that embarasses Bush as well here and thus the Reps probably ARE conspirators in this cover up.

"Methinks you're making a mountain out of a molehill, for strictly partisan reasons"

I think both parties are walking hand in hand on this.
Click to expand...


I think you are completely wrong here. There obviously IS more information and it IS highly relevant, otherwise Berger would not have given up his license.

Sfreak, you're going to need more evidence than your gut level feelings. The professional prosecutors at DOJ dispensed of this case. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, unless there is more concrete information from either mainstream, or relatively non-partisan sources.

As for his law liscence...why was giveing that up such a burden to Berger? I don't think the dude has practiced law in like 20 years or something. He's either worked in government, or in consulting and management positions.
 
Cypress said:
I think you are completely wrong here. There obviously IS more information and it IS highly relevant, otherwise Berger would not have given up his license.

Sfreak, you're going to need more evidence than your gut level feelings. The professional prosecutors at DOJ dispensed of this case. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, unless there is more concrete information from either mainstream, or relatively non-partisan sources.

As for his law liscence...why was giveing that up such a burden to Berger? I don't think the dude has practiced law in like 20 years or something. He's either worked in government, or in consulting and management positions.
Click to expand...
The same DoJ that is enmired in a different mess right now? I keep saying that they may be linked. I find it interesting to say the least that you suddenly find great assurance in the Administration's DoJ choices.
 
Damocles said:
The same DoJ that is enmired in a different mess right now? I keep saying that they may be linked. I find it interesting to say the least that you suddenly find great assurance in the Administration's DoJ choices.
Click to expand...

DOJ is the least partisan source that's been cited. Other than DOJ, the only thing I'm getting is opinions from ultra rightwing blogs.

And yes, Bush allegedly DID try to politicize the DOJ so that it would go after Democrats more. The fact that they didn't go after the Democrat Berger more speaks volumes. There was nothing there to go after.
 
Cypress said:
DOJ is the least partisan source that's been cited. Other than DOJ, the only thing I'm getting is opinions from ultra rightwing blogs.

And yes, Bush allegedly DID try to politicize the DOJ so that it would go after Democrats more. The fact that they didn't go after the Democrat Berger more speaks volumes. There was nothing there to go after.
Click to expand...
Or it was equally embarrassing to both parties. Once again, I find it amusing that you suddenly find such reassurance from the DoJ that just two weeks ago you were trashing. Methinks a bit of partisanship is showing.
 
. The fact that they didn't go after the Democrat Berger more speaks volumes. There was nothing there to go after.
//

Or it would also expose something embaressing to the Bushies.
 
Damocles said:
Or it was equally embarrassing to both parties. Once again, I find it amusing that you suddenly find such reassurance from the DoJ that just two weeks ago you were trashing. Methinks a bit of partisanship is showing.
Click to expand...


Two possibilities.

If DOJ was politicized to go after Democrats more aggresively than republicans (as has been alleged) , then they would have been keen to bring additional charges against the Democrat Berger. The fact that they didn't says it all.

If DOJ wasn't politicized by Bush, then they remain, as they should, non-partisan professional prosecutors. In this scenario, non-partisan professional DOJ prosecutors didn't find any further evidence to support more charges on Berger.

Which means all we're left with is speculation and consipiracy theories by rightwing blogs and superfreak ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top