Posted on 12/01/2001 4:06:05 PM PST by ChaseR
As of 8/08/01, United States Senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a co-defendent in the Judicial Watch, Loral Shareholders case. This case was filed in federal court in Washington, D. C. This case formally accuses Senator Hillary Clinton, along with other defendents - of transfering technology to China. Co-defendents in this devastating case include, but are not limited to - William Jefferson Clinton, John Huang and Bernard Schwartz. This case is styled 01-CV-1715.
Other than that, she's recently been elected New York's junior senator.
Go figger.
Well I think it helps more for her to have people like ChaseR and Beachooser helping defend her friends. For some reason they feel proud to be fronting for two of the biggest crooks in the DNC financial scandal. That's shameful.
To anyone reading this thread ... VA Advogado is a LIAR and I can prove it.
He has REPEATEDLY claimed that an AUTOPSY was done on Ron Brown's head. He continues to repeat this LIE despite having been shown several times by me that it is simply untrue. I have asked VA Advogado repeatedly to cite ANY document or post any authoritative quote that says Brown's body was autopsied. He can't because ALL of the pathologists involved in the case have stated that Brown's body was NOT autopsied. There are NO PHOTOS of the inside of Brown's head as VA Advogado has claimed. Brown's body was ONLY externally examined. There is ONE photo of an X-RAY that was taken of his head which survives ONLY because a photographer happened to take a picture of the x-rays at the EXAMINATION of his body. According to multiple pathologists, that photo suggests a lead snowstorm, another indication of a gunshot wound ... something VA Advogado calls a "silly" conspiracy.
Rather than challenge ANY of the facts with the TRUTH, he lies. In each case where I have corrected this lie, he has RUN and then made the same BOGUS claim on another thread. He is a SERIAL LIAR. I have asked him repeatedly to post a quote from the ORIGINAL source of the photo he posted that says Brown was autopsied? He hasn't because he can't. The original source says Ron Brown was NOT autopsied. Instead, he RUNS and then makes the same LYING claim on a later thread.
He also continues to spread the LIE that Ron Brown was on top of the world and had no motive for turning state's evidence against the DNC and Clintons just prior to his death. In doing so he ignores the fact that Brown was under investigation by literally everyone, was about to be indicted by an Independent Counsel, had hired a $750 hour attorney to defend him from such charges, and that there is SWORN TESTIMONY that he had told Clinton he was prepared to turn State's Evidence in the Chinagate and Campaign Finance scandals just prior to his death. He has a decidely Clintonesque view of the words "on top of the world", don't you think?
I think VA Advogado REFUSES to debates the facts in the Ron Brown case and keeps stating his LIES for one reason ... to try and keep others from considering those facts. He is not to be trusted because in all likelihood he is democRAT PRETENDING to be a conservative.
The fact is, I have exposed him as a LIAR and he doesn't like it so here he is making a snide remark about another concern I have ... that Riady stated in open court that the money he ILLEGALLY gave the DNC and Clinton campaigns was never returned even though the DNC and Clinton said it was. You would think that is something that needs investigation but there is NO SIGN that the Bush adminstration has done so. In fact, the RNC web site has never even mentioned what would seem to most a pretty damaging disclosure about the democRAT campaign illegalities. And VA Advogado apparently likes it that way ... an opinion you'd expect FROM A DEMOCRAT.
So WARNING ... VA Advogado is just plain DISHONEST. If he suggests something is "silly", don't take his word. If he supports something ... take a much closer look because it may be something that the democRATS would dearly love.
You better watch your back if you think he is on YOUR side.
But he is not entitle to LIE.
The fact that he has LIED REPEATEDLY in ways that clearly are meant to protect the DNC and Clinton makes his opinion somewhat less than credible.
Thank you. You have stated exactly my feelings. I disagree with JW, very much so. Whether I am a liar or not, well, I couldn't lie on this stuff if I tried. No one has gotten to the truth yet and I feel that ChaseR and BeAChooser are too wedded to Judical Watch and its clients to be objective. But thank you for your civility.
No, what is shameful is the way you have LIED with regards to the Ron Brown case and the way you dismiss the allegations by Riady that suggest Clinton and the DNC seriously violated campaign finance laws. If what he says is true, then the DNC and Clintons can't even claim they didn't know the money was illegal ... because they admitted that it was, said they'd returned it AND THEN DID NOT. Why would you be so quick to dismiss such a charge? I can think of only one reason ... you are a democRAT.
YOU are the one protecting DNC crooks. ChaseR and I are clearly seeking justice in Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, Campaign Finance Violations, the death of Brown, the death of Foster and many other illegalities that occurred the last 8 years. You can't hide any longer VA Advogado. You have LIED repeatedly about the Brown case and that can ONLY be because you don't want it investigated. And that can ONLY be because you are a democRAT.
You are a LIAR and we know that democRATS are LIARS. You ALWAYS RUN from facts and we know that democRATS do that. You insist on adhominen attacks, another democRAT characteristic. And you are an avid "move-on'er". QED.
He doesn't even deny he is a LIAR. Afterall, LYING is a badge of honor for democRATS.
Apparently clinton is allowed to do what he wants, as is george bush at this time. If you can suspend a born with civil right as the clerk in chief, or his agencies and bureaucrats can, or wage war, or issue bureaucratic edicts directly or through one of the executive branch agencies that have the form and substance of enfoceable "law", then perhaps he can just do whatever else he wants to do.
I would certainly love to see various of these people including hillary prosecuted, but it's become apparent there is no such thing as any "limit" to what a president or his proxies may do, and now we can see clearly you are officially admonished that if you do not agree, you may be summarily denounced as a "terrorist" and have the full weight of the US used against you.
These are dangerous times. I applaud the actions taken by larry and JW, at least it's an attempt to try to force accountability and a return to common sense and the meaning of the original documents. there are very few other attempts being made, mostly just complaining.
It's also aparent that this government no longer acts under any "classic" constitutional law, that having been suspended many years ago under these "emergency" rules. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool" was an accurate description of the function of our government now, it remains intact and in daily use.
I wish it were not so. Maybe this will accomplish something, like I said, it's an attempt, anyone else may offer another suggestion on how exactly to go about addressing past abuses, It's evident-at least to me-that the current administration has no plans to either address past abuses, or to change the policy of government by executive branch edict and dictates. They apparently approve of that themselves, and have millions of supporters. In short, there are no longer any limits or lines that the executive branch cannot cross. "Checks and balances" exist primarily as past anachronisms.
I have seen at the most I believe two posts on this forum that I can recall where someone with apparent "insider information" has indicated that past abuses are being addressed behind the scenes, but there is zero available publicly verifiable evidence that this is occuring or will occur in the future. In fact, the opposite is true, the overwhelming empirical evidence indicates that we in fact have been 'taken over" in an extremely sophisticated and long standing "coup" directed and run at the highest levels of both of the so called major political party's. They appear to cooperate with each other to a disturbing degree. This is an "appearance" to me, based only on what is publically there to look at. The players and names shift around, the results remain similar. The PRC is being supported and built up unchecked, by both the so called past 'democratic' executive branch administration, and now this so called "republican" administration. I see little differences, only very mild, almost indistinguishable differences. Campaign rhetoric is vastly different, real world actions are remarkably similar, especially as to the conduct of foreign policy.
For example, just for instance, if the clintons were still running the show, does anyone really doubt that he also wouldn't have ordered the military to repond in forceful kind against someone? Clinton clearly showed he was not in the least adverse to go bomb someplace, for any reason whatsoever. On any whim he would order it, and it would happen. We 'went to war' under clinton constqantly in fact, anyplace, anytime. This is just specualtion, but being the politician he is, I really can't see where he would have done much different if such an attack had happened as the 9-11 attacks-he would have gone and bombed someone extensibly, probably even sooner than bush did in fact. I'm not saying they are 'the same' they obviously aren't, but they are remarkably similar.
Like right now, by all accounts, following logic and this terror trail, we should be attacking and bombing saudi arabia, they-according to the governments own claims that we are forced to accept at face value-provided the bulk of the named individuals responsible for the attacks on 9-11, not any afghanis. Osama is alledgedly "in" afghanistan, but he is a saudi, as were the bulk of the terrorists and his "supporters", and the saudi government has similar views to his, ie, they are the current wahabis in power who are funding all the various islamic ' schools" and "centers' that these terrorists have used as recruitment areas. Osama runs some military camps in afghanistan, but the true head of the snake is saudi arabia, which is being allowed to freely skate on this issue. The similarities between these 'taliban" and the way saudi runs their government are overwhelming.
For an analogy, say a street cop had a problem in his town with gang violence and crime. Two choices, keep just looking at the smaller level crimes and gang members, keep announcing publically that you are 'tough on crime" from those efforts, or actually go to the headquarters of the gang, right to the top level.
Right now we are concentrating on lower level peon functionaries. Saudi Arabia has not even been publically mentioned as a possible "terrorist state" in any of the official pronouncements or even in the "leaked' pronouncements. And that's all this osama character is, although highly placed and wealthy, he is still only a lieutenant, low level, and his camps are not the exact center of the funding or command and control. Kabul is not the problem and never has been, it's Ridyah (sp) where these problems originate. Baghdad is again a diversion, the linkages with high level money and business dealings and support have been noted- and mostly ignored and dismissed as "irrelevant" Or "bashing" even though it crosses these so called "party" lines.
In my opinion, the first iraqi/gulf war was a triple cross between high level and connected players, some of them domestically here.
And back to china? Clearly the same deal, there are too many high level corporate interests that cross the aisles here politically who are 'supporting' china. I don't know if it's all just about making money, or if it's sinister beyond that. I suspect sinister in some areas, strongly suspect it, and public lying and covering up for past and present abuses is by far the easiest thing to accomplish if "anyone-you" are "in power" at any time. I hope to be proven wrong on that.
We have 11 months now into the "new and improved" administration, still waiting to see any beef on the clean up government promises bun. Would like to see a single instance where any past abuse is being taken to court by this administration-pick one, it doesn't matter, just a single example of some high level scandal being actually prosecuted.
All I have seen is more UN treaties signed, and suckerfish over humans, the rest is just "more of the same" as per the last 8 years, it's just being called differently. China is being constantly rewarded, no matter what they do, no-matter-what.
Yes, right now, they are "picking up" some islamic terrs, my questions is, isn't it unusual they waited until AFTER the 9-11 attacks to do this? This is to be ignored for some reason, timing is not important? There is ample evidence of 'they" meaning "government" being given plenty of clues and warnings, to my memory, the week before the 9-11 attacks, george bush and company were concentrating on coming up with a word twisted formula for illegal immigrant amnesty part two as his main focus. Now it's even more uninspected foreign cargoes being allowed to travel wherever they want to inside CONUS. Umm, this isn't supposed to be suspicious? On the one hand, it's apparently policy to make airline passengers jump through ridiculous hoops, on the other, it's totally all right and desirable to allow virtually unrestricted access to the interior of the country to foreign transfer agents and whatever their cargo happens to be. It's there in black and white to review. Back before 9-11 it wasn't stopping attacks in advance, that's obvious. And are they putting in the supposed "lawful sanctions" against china for transferring missile and WMD technology like they are supposed to? No, they aren't, cosmetic efforts only. They are still rewarding china.
Go larry, best of luck, this is a rough row to weed here, too many "connected ones" like what their trading gardens are growing to care about the weeds. Too many people with power seem to think weeds are an acceptable part of the US garden.
As of 8/08/01, United States Senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a co-defendent in the Judicial Watch, Loral Shareholders case. This case was filed in federal court in Washington, D. C. This case formally accuses Senator Hillary Clinton, along with other defendents - of transfering technology to China. Co-defendents in this devastating case include, but are not limited to - William Jefferson Clinton, John Huang and Bernard Schwartz. This case is styled 01-CV-1715.Ya didn't thing we'd find out, didja John?? ;-)
You said it yourself. I need explain nothing further. The scumbags successfully stonewalled, lied, pandered and cheated to fight away the punishment for their crimes and now that Bush has a bigger fish to fry he isn't gonna waste his time worrying about the scumbags.
Bump!!!
g
Not really a Hillary fan. I guess I care more about the country than you do and actually accept the priorities of our new President.
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.