The clintons' malpractice and malfeasance
ooze from every orifice, real and virtual....
VIRTUAL KILL:
THE CHRIS WALLACE-BILL CLINTON INTERVIEW DECONSTRUCTED
Posted on 01/03/2007 11:48:07 PM PST by Jim Robinson
VIRTUAL KILL:
THE CHRIS WALLACE-BILL CLINTON INTERVIEW DECONSTRUCTED
"What did Sandy Berger know and when did he know it?" Excellent! Excellent! MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' We must nail missus clinton at every whistle stop, indeed. About this. About everything.
HILLARY CLINTON THREATENED JUANITA BROADDRICK 2 WEEKS AFTER BILL CLINTON RAPED HER (VIDEO)
|
bookmark for later
bttt
This all screams the question, "Why has the media allocated so little focus on this?"
... The average reporter... once had a stronger loyalty to his craft than his biases -- perhaps the path to the good old days is through the future, and current journalism majors can lead us back to excellence.Today however,
... [T]he media's five-to-one ratio of liberals to conservatives (as was reported by the Pew Foundation in 2004) is having a deleterious impact on us all in that we're only fully protected when the GOP commit the offense.... Every once in a while a story of great magnitude arises in a way that provokes such little initial coverage that it effectively hides in plain sight. When this occurs, it's either because the original news worthiness appears to be at a lower level of importance, or because those with direct and indirect vested interests have enough aggregate influence so as to play down the story in question.
The Watergate scandal is an example of the first; Sandy Berger removing and extinguishing protected records of national security exemplifies the second.
... What happened to that kind of passionate investigative journalism? Sandy Berger stealing and destroying classified documents is a story with so many startling facts already in evidence, even the layman newshound should think to ask, "What else is being hidden and what are the motives?"
Why is robbing national security documents less important than robbing campaign documents?
Worse than Watergate
Front Page ^ | Jan 5, 2007 | Alan Nathan
James Madison This was bound to happen. The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will. Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." True in theory. True even in Lippmann's quaint mid-20th-century America, perhaps. But patently false in this postmodern era of the bubbas and the Pinches. When a free and great society is hijacked by a seditious bunch of dysfunctional, power-hungry malcontents and elitists, it will remain neither free nor great for long. When hijacked by them in the midst of asymmetric warfare, it will soon not remain at all. If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst. Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.' "It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place." H. L. Mencken
When the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')
It seems to me that Executive Privilege could properly only be asserted by the executive in office when the documents are sought, i.e., the Bush Administration. The former Clinton administration is a legal non-entity. I don't see how it would be a position to assert any privilege.
Will we ever see Hillary's dissertation?
'Freedom of information' and all that, - right?
Where's the ACLU?
Isn't it nauseating the way all the former presidents "hug" and glad hand each other at state funerals, etc.
Absolutely disturbing.
My favorite part:
"Berger said if someone had always been with him, he would not have taken any documents."
What is he - a toddler?? Do they have a "safety fence" to keep him away from the stove at home?
Berger would be IN JAIL now, if he were GOP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
About the clintons' rape of Juanita Broaddrick. (Every once in a while a story of great magnitude arises in a way that provokes such little initial coverage that it effectively hides in plain sight. When this occurs, it's either because the original news worthiness appears to be at a lower level of importance, or because those with direct and indirect vested interests have enough aggregate influence so as to play down the story in question.)