Skip to comments.Why Bush Justice rolled over for Sandy Berger
Posted on 01/25/2007 10:58:20 AM PST by windchime
As I watched these events unfold two years ago, I presumed that the Bush DOJ chose not to exploit these stories for reasons of national security. Although seemingly unrelated, both of these stories lead to the same larger secret, a secret that Berger risked his career to conceal, a secret that if revealed had the potential to destabilize the nation during a time of war.
As I have since learned, however, the Bush White House is not fully in control of its own Justice Department and FBI. In truth, the decision to protect Berger may have more to do with saving the Clinton legacy than with stabilizing the nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at familysecuritymatters.org ...
It's called "Greymail".
It was first used back in the early 1980s, IIRC, as part of a criminal's defense. He threatened to defend himself on the stand by revealing certain goobermint secrets.
The courts ruled that a defendant could not publically expose confidential material in public, so closed trials were ordered and the transcripts edited or sealed.
Why I Never Should Have Had Sandy Berger on 'The Big Story'
foxnews.com ^ | 12/21/06 | John Gibson
Sandy Berger: What Did He Take and Why Did He Take It?(Sandy Burglar) Real Clear Politics ^ | January 15, 2007 | Ronald A. Cass
Washington needs to be renamed, Washingtoon, CYA.
And why hasn't Bergler been indicted??? Why should a Rat get preferential treatment???
It is BS about secrets being protected. The NY Times seems to have the ability to access any secret that makes Bush look bad. So why is it that other so called secrets involving the DemoRat operatives get a free pass???
Something is pretty stinky here.
Thanks for the term, 'Greymail'.
It looks like there are ways to get to Berger without jeopardizing confidential material. Check out the video.
And Berger and the Clintons have large ones to cover.
It's called the U.S. Government. Especially the Clinton appointed part of it (though I can't but help notice that Bush IS the President of the United States now, and could probably get this taken care of, if he wanted to).
Cashill's articles have some interesting theories.
I'm sure all will be revealed when they are all dead. I hope to be alive to hear it.
GWB and his administration need to have more of a mean streak, IMO.
You can bet the current president and members of his administration will have to deal with a lot of persecution and vindictive acts if a Dem wins the presidency in '08.
What would the new charges be?
As I understand it, he's already been tried, convicted, and sentenced. I'm not an atty, but I don't think he can be re-charged or re-sentenced - unless it was something new.
This whole thing really stinks and he'll be back in for Klintoon in '08.
It is BS about secrets being protected. The NY Times seems to have the ability to access any secret that makes Bush look bad. So why is it that other so called secrets involving the DemoRat operatives get a free pass???And why is Bush going along with this? Somewhat like the Palestinians, Bush never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
As the media would like us to believe, he has been tried and convicted. But I don't recall any court appearances related to stealing classified documents, which is the crime in question here.
The concealment of classified documents in ones pants and the removal from the archives is strictly prohibited under law, regardless of careless intent.
Republicans are always much more concerned to protect Democrats afflicted by scandals than they are worried about protecting Republicans.