Hmmm... why no cry from the left

"Ahh but if you only knew. Back is out right now, the pain of it all "

I had a feeling it would catch up to you sooner or later. You're not a spring chicken anymore. Time for your third nap of the day? or perhaps your tenth call from nature?

:D
 
Ahh but if it were not for that back, I would be like a young pup of 45 again.
And yes naps are requred with large doses of pain pills.

Darn there goes NZ this summer I suppose....
 
Once again, the fact is that until he was under investigation again he held that license suddenly giving it up to cover something up. Ignoring the coverup because you want evidence is ridiculous. The only way to get evidence is to actually seek it. You just want it to end, you help cover up that pile of turd because it there is a few D turds in the mix.


Once again, the fact is that until he was under investigation again he held that license suddenly giving it up to cover something up


Speculation.
 
"I need evidence and facts. This is just speculation based on nothing more than a gut feeling."

WHICH is WHY Berger should be forced to testify.... THAT is the only way we are going to find out what he is hiding... and he is CLEARLY hiding something. THAT is a fact. IF he wasn't he would have answered the Bars questions.

he is CLEARLY hiding something. THAT is a fact.

Speculation. I can think of multiple reasons why a dude would gladly give up his law liscence, to put this behind him and get out of the public eye.


There has to be more than just speculation to assert that he's covering something up. And I'm pretty consistent on this: If you've ever noticed, when lefties try to assert that Bush blew up the twin towers, or that an american cruise missle hit the Pentagon, I tell them I'm not buying it without credible evidence. I consider it bullshit until then. And I don't call for an investigation until credible evidence emerges that merits an investigation.


That's not to say I don't speculate about things. But when I do, I'll freely fess up to it.
 
"Speculation. I can think of multiple reasons why a dude would gladly give up his law liscence, to put this behind him and get out of the public eye. "

Then you clearly have no understanding when it comes to obtaining a professional degree/license. If you had one, you would fight tooth and nail to keep it. You would not give it up simply to avoid answering questions... if you had nothing to hide.

Also, side note... I have agreed that I am speculating.... but to act as though he isn't hiding something is a tad naive. (IMO)
 
"Speculation. I can think of multiple reasons why a dude would gladly give up his law liscence, to put this behind him and get out of the public eye. "

Then you clearly have no understanding when it comes to obtaining a professional degree/license. If you had one, you would fight tooth and nail to keep it. You would not give it up simply to avoid answering questions... if you had nothing to hide.

Also, side note... I have agreed that I am speculating.... but to act as though he isn't hiding something is a tad naive. (IMO)


Then you clearly have no understanding when it comes to obtaining a professional degree/license. If you had one, you would fight tooth and nail to keep it. You would not give it up simply to avoid answering questions... if you had nothing to hide.


As far as I know he hasn't been a practicing lawyer in at least two decades. His career took other paths: goverment and consulting. You stated it was a "fact" that giving up his law liscence proved he was hiding something.

I don't see it being that straightfoward of a fact at all.
 
As I said Cypress... whether practicing or not... no professional would just give up what they worked so hard to get. Do you think a doctor would give up his/her right to practice medicine just to avoid some questions? How about a CPA? A CFA? or as we have in this case... a lawyer?

Not a chance in hell this happens just to avoid questioning.... ESPECIALLY if you have nothing to hide.
 
Then you clearly have no understanding when it comes to obtaining a professional degree/license. If you had one, you would fight tooth and nail to keep it. You would not give it up simply to avoid answering questions... if you had nothing to hide.


As far as I know he hasn't been a practicing lawyer in at least two decades. His career took other paths: goverment and consulting. You stated it was a "fact" that giving up his law liscence proved he was hiding something.

I don't see it being that straightfoward of a fact at all.


Yep. Like I said, he hadn't practiced law in a long time, and had no intention to return to the legal profession. I don't see giving up his law liscence as a huge burden to him. I could just as easily speculate that this whole episode was embarrassing and humiliating to him, and he wanted to take steps to put it behind him and out of the public eye.

Three years ago, I pleaded guilty and accepted the penalties sought by the Department of Justice.

I recognized then that my law license would be affected, and I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license. While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession.

I am very sorry for what I did, and deeply apologize.

-Sandy Berger
 
"In January 2007, departing Republican staff of The United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report titled Sandy Berger's Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions. It states that the FBI or the Department of Justice never questioned Berger about two earlier visits he made on May 30, 2002 and July 18, 2003, when he reviewed White House working papers not yet inventoried by the National Archives, and speculates that, had Berger previously been entirely successful in actions at which he was later caught, "nobody would know they were gone." It also contains the FBI's statement as to why they concluded there was no exposure on those dates: "Berger was under constant supervision".[27][15] Despite senior Bush Administration officials giving the report's authors highly unusual access to internal information about an ongoing DOJ investigation,[28] the report contains no new facts that the career prosecutors handling the case overlooked.

The report did, however, cause the Wall Street Journal to, in January 2007, retract their initial opinion of the case, saying there are substantial questions concerning the truth of Berger's statements and that other documents may have been removed. They now argue that Berger's taking of multiple copies of the same document contradict his statement that he took them only for his personal research, since they note that he could have simply taken one copy. However neither they, nor the committee report, detail an alternate theory in which multiple thefts of the same document are key.[29][30] Mr. Berger continues to insist that he took the copies of the same document for personal convenience, and thought them overclassified (i.e. the information they contained was not actually sensitive to national security)."

The above is from Wiki as well...
 
Speculation that there is anything in the e-mails....

Speculation that so and so "lied"....

Speculation that....

Before an investigation almost all you ever have is "speculation".... Of course you also have the coverup activity. If it walks and acts like a duck and weighs as much, it must be a witch!!!!
 
"sorry I missed that. point ? no point ....
touchy...."


Probably due to your incessant desire to post one-liners that do not address the threads point???
 
That is right photo proof that Cunningham visited the WH after the WH said he did not ?
Yeah, just a theory and supposition to imply that his influence had entered into the WH...
 
So what we have decided is that from now on.... for Cypress... you must show proof BEFORE investigating. Hmmmm.....

No, not proof. You can't really prove anything, you can accumulate evidence until an overwhelming case is made.

And I think that in order to investigate someone, you have to have some evidence of some wrongdoing. Don't you think that?
 
Darla... yes, in order to investigate you should have some evidence or logical reason to pursue the case.

A lawyer voluntarily giving up his license in order to avoid questioning from the Bar Association provides more than enough reason to find out what is being kept hidden. Because there is no way a lawyer just hands over his license to avoid questioning... unless he has something to hide. Like you said earlier, it is likely that whatever he has done is covering up something embarassing to both Bush and Clinton... which is why no one is pursuing this. Which is why we need to push for the info to be revealed.
 
Back
Top