Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics

LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-11-2006, 10:40 AM   #1 (permalink)
Bush's last 31%:Too Many Complicated Scandals for "Liberal" Press to Explain to Them?

I posted the following, back on April 19. It seems to me that, unlike back when there was only the WMD deception for the illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq, Tom Delay's Texas indictment, runaway federal budget deficits, tax cuts aimed to almost solely benefit the rich, the leaking of Plame's name for political revenge, the collapse of FEMA amid the disclosures that it was mismanaged by incompetent political hacks, the indictment of Scooter Libby, Bush's campaign to privatize SSI, officially sanctioned CIA & DOD secret prisons and abuse and torture of detainees, and even the NSA's illegal wiretapping, the "liberal" press had "a handle" on reporting those stories.

Bush supporters, republican party platform or policies supporters, and some other conservatives who posted here, seemed able to defend, minimize, explain away, or blame the liberal press in reaction to most or all of the above. Those who were critical could be branded as unAmerican...unpatriotic in a "time of war"...guilty of failing to "support our troops"!!!

Folks who never voted for the "candidates" responsible for those other scandals, were accused of being wrong for merely critically discussing those controversies and condemning those practices, and those who promoted them.

My concern now is that, with the advent of the guilty pleas of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and Jack Abramoff, the "balance" here has changed. The "defenders" post less and less, even as the scandals grow more alarming, more intertwined; larger in scale, in the cost to our government and in it's very ability to function. Now, whole government agencies seem destroyed. FEMA has been described by senators as irretrievably "broken". The CIA, punching bag and scapegoat for all that went wrong with WMD "intelligence", even though the VP had to visit their HQ ten times, and the CIA feat of "turning" Saddam's foreign minister had to be ignored before the CIA, in the administration's eyes, "got it right", is also broken.

Blaming the CIA was not enough. Porter Goss was sent there to chase out the entire covert section, and demand partisan loyalty as a prerequisite for continued employment of the rest of the agency personnel. Even the CIA Inspector General, John Helgersonin one of Porter Goss's last destructive edicts, was <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/24/news/cia.php">forced to take a polygraph</a>, the agency "watchdog", appointed by the POTUs, and only removed by him, was marginalized because he was supposed to investigate the CIA, not to submit to it!

Goss appointed a new executive director of operations, the #3 position, "Dusty" Foggo, in Nov., 2004, and the now "too complicated" scandals of Cunningham, Wade, Wilkes, and Abramoff, Delay, Buckham, merged.

Can the "liberal" press even cover these intricacies, let along convince any of Bush's remaining 31 percent "base" to reverse course and vote for a democratic party congressional candidate in November? Is there any other way to <b>realistically</b> trigger actual congressional investigations and oversight, as soon as next January, without voting in a house or senate democratic majority? is the press even liberal? Are they covering the third Cunningham briber, Thomas Kontogiannis, even now? Check the <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Thomas+Kontogiannis&btnG=Search+News">google news link</a>....they aren't!

Here is the background on this story. I've highlighted the name of the Russian who Curt Weldon praised in the Congressional Record. Consider that Ed Buckham was Tom Delay's chief of staff, and that he is represented as Delay's Pastpr and his spiritual advisor. Buckham founded a lobbying firm, Alexander Strategies Group (ASG), that paid Delay's wife $3200 per month, to "work" a "no show" job. ASG received $500000 in lobbying fees from Randy Cunningham briber, Brett Wilkes.....

.....Republican Rep. Randy Cunningham pled guilty to corruption charges five months ago. Would a liberal press take this long to report the following, sparse coverage about two of the four conspirators who Cunningham admitted accepting bribes from? (New York businessman Thomas
Kontogiannis; and John T. Michael, Kontogiannis' nephew)

Again....if you've read similar reports of Weldon's 1999 Congressional Record entry, or about Karen Weldon suddenly starting a lobbying firm with no prior experience or international connections, or a followup report about Thomas Kontogiannis, before today, from a MSM press source, please post a link. The Curt Weldon/Able Danger reports, and the Cunningham corruption scandal were widely reported. A liberal press would dispatch armies of reporters to dig deeper, in order to report more "dirt", ASAP, but that is not what has happened.

Consider what is new "news" to you, in this post. After Bob Ney was accused by the DOJ of placing statements in the Congressional Record in exchange for trips and other "perks" from Jack Abramoff, wouldn't a "liberal" press, provide more followup coverage than reports from a sole outlet, the Washington Post? Wouldn't "the Post", and other liberal major media outlets comb the Congressional Record, looking for similar, odd entries, by other congressmen, linked to Abramoff or Delay associates? Why would a liberal press, leave it to me, to share Curt Weldon's apparent complicity with Abramoff, Delay, and Buckham, with you?
....and here's the problem...even for a "liberal" biased, anti-Bush, anti-republican press cadre, there's greed, treason, conspiracy, and racketeering, but there are too many players, and it's too effing complicated:

Yesterday, in Post #11 in the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=104278">"Why did Goss Resign?"</a> thread, I mentioned Jerry Lewis, before posting an article about Rick Gwin:
Now, there's this in today's news:
Are Feds to Blame for Duke's Silence?
By Paul Kiel - May 11, 2006, 1:25 PM

Below, Justin noted the mixed signals coming from Rick Gwin, the Pentagon's top investigator into the Duke Cunningham case, about Duke's level of cooperation. I called legal experts and asked -- if Cunningham isn't talking to investigators, as Gwin claims, why not?

If Duke's staying silent, it's because prosecutors have already forfeited their only leverage to get him to talk, the experts said. In fact, they've given him incentive to hush up....
Lewis Surfaces in Probe of Cunningham
By Peter Pae, Times Staff Writer
May 11, 2006

Federal prosecutors have begun an investigation into Rep. Jerry Lewis, the Californian who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee, government officials and others said, signaling the spread of a San Diego corruption probe.

The U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles has issued subpoenas in an investigation into the relationship between Lewis (R-Redlands) and a Washington lobbyist linked to disgraced former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe), three people familiar with the investigation said.....

....Lewis said Wednesday that he was not aware of any investigation, had not been contacted by any investigator and did not know why he would be investigated.

<b>"For goodness sake, why would they be doing that?" Lewis asked.</b>
and, if this is true, isn't it treason?:
Cozying Up to Power
Brent Wilkes' businesses grew along with his political ties. He is 'co-conspirator No. 1' in the Cunningham case, his lawyer says. He has not been charged.
By Peter Pae and Dan Morain, Times Staff Writers
May 8, 2006
POWAY, Calif. — Brent R. Wilkes was a small defense contractor who looked for powerful friends in high places.....

.......Over the next four years, Cunningham secured through legislation $80 million in digital document work, and Wilkes' firm was always a beneficiary. But Wilkes wanted more.

The Pentagon was slow to pay Wilkes because Army officials in the field preferred Audre's rival system, according to an inspector general's report. So in July 1999, co-conspirator No. 1 faxed Cunningham "talking points" on how to bully a Pentagon manager into releasing more government funds. These documents were included in Cunningham's sentencing hearing.

The memo instructed the lawmaker to demand that the Defense Department official shift money from another program to cover funds designated for ADCS. "We need $10 m[illion] more immediately," Cunningham was to tell the official.

If the official didn't cooperate, Cunningham was to say his next calls would be to two high-ranking Pentagon officials. The script called for Cunningham to add: "This is very important and if you cannot resolve this others will be calling also" — two names in this passage are blacked out in the memo. Despite Cunningham's threats, the Pentagon manager was unmoved, according to grand jury testimony.

A week later, Cunningham and Lewis called a Washington news conference to announce that they had slashed $2 billion in funding for the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, one of the Pentagon's prized programs, citing cost overruns. Both congressmen had been key supporters of the project, and their comments shocked Pentagon officials.

Within days, the same Pentagon manager who had been resistant to Cunningham's appeals sent the congressman a list of other programs where money could be "reallocated" to Wilkes' firm, according to court documents. "The Defense Department spends $1 billion a day, so the [Wilkes] contract was like a rounding error. It just wasn't worth putting our big programs at risk," a senior Pentagon official said on condition he not be identified.

On Friday, Lewis said "there was no connection whatsoever" between his position on the F-22 program and Cunningham's effort to pressure the Pentagon on Wilkes' behalf. "If I knew about it, I would have stopped it," Lewis said.

The Pentagon agreed to send $5 million more to Wilkes' firm, according to court documents. The F-22 funds were later restored. In subsequent years, Cunningham and Lewis supported full funding for the warplane.

In May 2000, a month after his firm received the $5 million, Wilkes wrote two checks to Cunningham for a total of $100,000. These payments were used as evidence in the bribery case...
Mods, I had to leave out descriptions of how Wilkes, Foggo, Goss, Abramoff, Delay, Buckham, and even Delay's wife are all interrelated in this "mess". Even with self imposed brevity, small posted news article excerpts, I fear that this thread will be locked for having a"too wordy, link rich" OP. Bear in mind that I don't make this stuff up. Please allow this thread to proceed.

Is the liberal press covering this in any way that is an example that they are "liberal" ceasing any opportunity to smear non-liberals? Will anyone who still supports Bush or congressional republicans be influenced to vote against them? Where will all of this lead?
host is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 11:12 AM   #2 (permalink)
ubertuber's Avatar
Location: Ellay
I'll read your links when I get off of work - but I do have one immediate thought.

I have a feeling that the issue of diminishing returns works in reverse - that as that approval figure gets lower and lower, it will take exponentially larger bad news or energy to turn supporters into doubters. Below 31%, you're probably starting to talk about people who are supporters of the Republican party in ways that transcend any particular president's accomplishments or foibles. That's tough to chip into.
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 11:31 AM   #3 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
Ustwo's Avatar
host of all those links, there is one word that none of them contain.


We are talking about Bush's approval rating right?
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 12:05 PM   #4 (permalink)
It's all downhill from here
docbungle's Avatar
Location: Denver
Originally Posted by host
Those who were critical could be branded as unAmerican...unpatriotic in a "time of war"...guilty of failing to "support our troops"!!!

Folks who never voted for the "candidates" responsible for those other scandals, were accused of being wrong for merely critically discussing those controversies and condemning those practices, and those who promoted them.
While there is some truth in what you say here, the way in which you say it is the reason for a lot of those replies, imo. When posts are so front-loaded with bias, it is difficult for those with opposing views to not become defensive. Also, posts that start out with a sort of "I told you so" type of vibe are not going to fare well, regardless of merit. Also, only a certain type of person said the things that you state above. The vast majority of people don't think I'm a traitor because I don't always agree with Bush or his policies.

Even with self imposed brevity, small posted news article excerpts, I fear that this thread will be locked for having a"too wordy, link rich" OP. Bear in mind that I don't make this stuff up. Please allow this thread to proceed.
Again, yet another self-referential jab regarding your posts being edited by the mods? It seriously takes away from whatever you are trying to say.

Is the liberal press covering this in any way that is an example that they are "liberal" ceasing any opportunity to smear non-liberals? Will anyone who still supports Bush or congressional republicans be influenced to vote against them? Where will all of this lead?
Are you denying there is any sort of liberal press? Or are you saying it's just not as liberal as some people imply? I think there is a huge amount of reporting done from both the liberal and conservative points of view. Wouldn't you agree?
Bad Luck City

Last edited by docbungle; 05-11-2006 at 12:07 PM..
docbungle is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 01:12 PM   #5 (permalink)
aceventura3's Avatar
Location: Ventura County
Originally Posted by host
The "defenders" post less and less, even as the scandals grow more alarming, more intertwined; larger in scale, in the cost to our government...
The frequency of my posts are correlated to the stock market, not the poor logic used here or in the media to demonize Bush. When I move money to cash, I have more time to kill.

All I know is that the economy is strong, business is good, the stock market is good, unemployment is low, homeownership is high, inflation is low, no attacks here since 9/11, schools are improving and my garbage gets picked up on time.

Oh I forgot - and the sky is falling - the sky is falling. Heck the sky has been falling for the last 5 years. When are the liberals going to actually find an impeachable offense or something? when are women going to start needing to get abortions in back alleys, etc, etc, etc. When is all the predicted doom and gloom going to occur?
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 01:40 PM   #6 (permalink)
Location: Seattle
Originally Posted by ubertuber
I'll read your links when I get off of work - but I do have one immediate thought.

I have a feeling that the issue of diminishing returns works in reverse - that as that approval figure gets lower and lower, it will take exponentially larger bad news or energy to turn supporters into doubters. Below 31%, you're probably starting to talk about people who are supporters of the Republican party in ways that transcend any particular president's accomplishments or foibles. That's tough to chip into.
I definitely agree, there is a percentage of folks that will follow and support no matter what event, scandal, poor policy, etc is brought to light, as long as some core fundamental theme is played to. And yes I do believe that's typically based on religious views.
Topper is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 01:50 PM   #7 (permalink)
Deja Moo
Elphaba's Avatar
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
I haven't personally experienced a liberal or conservative bias in the msp, but that may be due to not watching broadcast news. I believe the whole "liberal bias" nonsense is merely a clever talking point that has stuck. What I find disgusting is the lack of investigative reporting that was once considered the public's watchdog. We can't trust our politicians to investigate themselves so we are left with nada.

I honestly believed that the Abramoff scandal would result in serious ethics reform. The joke is on me and the rest of the country with the piddling little gesture currently being negotiated.

Do I endorse throwing all the bums out in November? I will look at my representatives and senators voting records and decide if they deserve my vote. My first priority is finding a fiscally conservative candidate with the hope of correcting the mess this administration has created. I thought I could trust the Republican party in that regard, but obviously I was wrong.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 02:27 PM   #8 (permalink)
guy44's Avatar
Location: corner of No and Where
Well, I do think that the sheer number of scandals is simply overwhelming. I mean, off the top of my head, you've got this massive, gigantic, titanic NSA scandal, which ties into Hayden at the NSA (who told Congress under oath that this kind of monitoring wasn't happening) going to the CIA, whose head recently resigned because he had so obliterated the agency by politicising it and purging a generation of top analysts and officers and also because he was in a turf war with the Director of National Intelligence and also because his hack top appointee liked the hookers, who were supplied by corrupt contracters who have already pleaded guilty to bribing Congressman Cunningham, whose corruption was so bad that just-leaked memos show the contractors telling Cunningham how to go about shaking down the Pentagon for cash, a scandal which now officially ties in to Rep. Lewis, chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Hell, yesterday it turns out that Bush's HUD Secretary denied a government contract because the companies owner didn't like Bush.

I mean, shit. Those are the revelations of the past WEEK, just the ones off the top of my head.

You want to talk no-bid contracts for pro-Bush companies in Iraq and New Orleans? Or the neverending revelations about faked, hyped, and distorted pre-war intelligence meant to get us into a war of choice? How about that FEMA, huh? The Dept. of Homeland Security isn't exactly doing so hot, either.

Of course the media can't keep up. There are so many scandals that my brain just froze trying to think of them all.
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"
guy44 is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 08:03 PM   #9 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
Ustwo's Avatar
My how quickly some forget 1992-2000

Well in all fairness many of you were pretty young, but still
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 08:53 PM   #10 (permalink)
shakran's Avatar
Well I remember 1992-2000. Starr tried for years (and wasted jillions of taxpayer dollars) trying to prove anything with Whitewater and couldn't. And if you really think getting a blowjob in the oval office is as bad as murdering thousands of Iraqis and US soldiers by forcing them into an unjust war that you lied to start. . .
shakran is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 11:52 PM   #11 (permalink)
Originally Posted by Ustwo
My how quickly some forget 1992-2000

Well in all fairness many of you were pretty young, but still
I'm not that young...and I don't know what you are talking about. For the young....here is what happened, mostly documented by determinations of the Cheney endorsed, factcheck.org site, and the publicly edited, "Wikipedia" site.
What does your "party" or your POTUS offer the "rest of us", Ustwo? You've told us you're a practicing dentist. You probably have good health insurance coverage, and you don't like a progressive tax policy, like the one that Clinton fully supported. The majority of us are not as fortunate as you are, Ustwo. Clinton was "our POTUS". Sometimes, he represented the interests of the majority...the middle middle class....and lower. We, the majority...are America! Why do you hate America, Ustwo? If you disagree with my documentation, go to the Wiki links, and change what appears there.....make it more....accurate...if you can back up your opinions.....

Ustwo,are you referring to this?
(The 6 percent deficit was in fiscal year 1983, and the 4.7 percent deficits was in f-y 1992. Deficits decreased, turned to a 2.4 percent <b>surplus</b> in the seventh budget year of the Clinton presidency, in f-y 2000.......)
<img src="http://www.factcheck.org/imagefiles/image004.png">
Half a trillion dollars is the most ever, but several others have been worse relative to the size of the economy.

February 27, 2004

Modified: February 27, 2004
or....maybe you mean this? :
The President wrongly claimed he cut the growth of discretionary spending. Reality: the growth rate multiplied.

February 9, 2004

Modified: February 23, 2004

President Bush slipped up in his hour-long interview with NBC's Tim Russert over the weekend, claiming that the growth of discretionary federal spending has slowed markedly since he took office. But in fact, annual growth has been in double digits for the past three years, far higher than in any year of the Clinton administration.

.......As Clinton's budget surpluses have turned to deficits, Bush has come under criticism from all sides, liberals complaining about tax cuts and, lately, conservatives complaining about spending.

A Cato Institute analyst wrote Jan. 23 calling the increase "The Republican Spending Explosion,” and said discretionary spending increases signed by Bush -- once adjusted for inflation -- "are 3 of the 10 biggest annual increases in the last 40 years.”

A Heritage Foundation analyst wrote that "spending has increased twice as fast under President Bush as it did under President Clinton," and attributed the spending surge less to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 than to a lack of "self-discipline required to balance fiscal priorities.".....
Maybe you objected to Clinton's policy of heavily taxing the rich instead of the rest of us?

....The NRSC cites only one vote by Byrd that was actually in favor of raising taxes. That one wasn't "today," it was a dozen years ago – the 1993 Clinton deficit-reduction measure, which also contained spending cuts. That 1993 measure did raise taxes on the middle class but only very slightly. It raised the gasoline tax by 4.3 cents per gallon. It also increased the amount of Social Security benefits that are subject to taxation, but only for those making $44,000 a year for a married couple. The rest of the increase was focused almost exclusively on the highest-earning one percent of households......
or....was your comment about all that Clinton era corruption?
Clinton Probes Cost $60 Million
Total Counsel Costs for Administration Top $110 Million

By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 31, 2001; Page A10

The independent counsel investigations of former president Bill Clinton have cost almost $60 million, with months of wrap-up work ahead, the General Accounting Office reported yesterday.

Independent Counsel Robert W. Ray and his predecessor, Kenneth W. Starr, had spent $59.9 million as of Sept. 30 on their probes of the Whitewater dispute, the White House travel office firings, the FBI files controversy and the Monica Lewinsky scandal, according to the GAO's latest six-month report. Ray, who took over from Starr in October 1999, spent about $8 million, and Starr spent the rest.

In all, five independent counsels investigating Clinton administration officials have spent more than $110.4 million.

Hours before he left office, Clinton reached a deal with Ray that ensured he would avoid indictment for his misleading statements about Lewinsky. In return, Clinton admitted giving false testimony. In a separate agreement with Arkansas authorities, Clinton agreed to pay a $25,000 fine and accepted a five-year suspension of his law license.....
Ray Report

Kenneth Starr's successor, Robert Ray, released a report in September of 2000 that stated "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct." Ray's report effectively ended the Whitewater investigation.
Have you considered how the eight year, $110 million, unrelenting criminal investigtaion of the Clintons, came about?
Or....how Paula Jones lawyers were able to put Clinton in the position of lying under oath about having sex with Monica Lewinski, in a deposition triggered by Paula's suit against sitting president Clinton?
Arkansas Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Arkansas Project is the general name of a series of investigations (mostly funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife) that were designed to damage and end the presidency of Bill Clinton.[1]

<b>According to R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. the idea for "investigating" the Clintons was born on a fishing trip on the Chesapeake Bay in the fall of 1993.</b> David Brock, who reported many of the Clinton scandals, described himself as a Republican "hitman" who "soon became a lead figure in the drive to" get Clinton. Writing for the American Spectator, he brought the stories of alleged sexual misbehavior by Bill and Hillary Clinton into the public notice in late 1993. The unproven Troopergate charges were first attempt to examine the private life of an American president."[2]. The Pacific Research Institute and GOPAC funded further attempts to discredit the Clintons.

The investigations mostly concentrated on the Whitewater scandal, which extended to a conspiracy theory surrounding the death of Vince Foster, a Clinton aide with connections to Whitewater. <b>Christopher Ruddy (a freelance reporter for the Scaife owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) published a series of articles claiming Clinton was behind Foster's suicide.</b> Although Clinton was never found to have broken the law by Ken Starr, Ruddy published his book "The Strange Death of Vince Foster" regardless. While his conspiracy theories about Foster have been dismissed by mainstream conservative, and even some non-mainstream conservatives like Ann Coulter, there is a significant number of people who believe his claims that Foster's death was suspicious.[3] Nonetheless in 1999, Joseph Farah's Western Journalism Center "placed some 50 ads reprinting Ruddy's Tribune-Review stories in the Washington Times, then repackaged the articles as a packet titled 'The Ruddy Investigation,' which sold for $12." [4] Shortly thereafter, the Western Journalism Center "circulated a video featuring Ruddy's claims, 'Unanswered-The Death of Vincent Foster,' that was produced by ultra-conservative James Davidson, chairman of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) and co-editor of the Strategic Investment newsletter."[5] (NTU's research arm receives funds from Scaife.)

David Brock then of the American Spectator (and previously of the Heritage Foundation) also went after the Clintons. <b>Brock was the first journalist who published the sexual allegations by Paula Jones, which conflicted with later claims.[6]</b> The Troopergate investigation later led Jones to sue Clinton, successfully obtaining an out of court settlement in the hundreds of thousands. Brock continued his dubious conspiracy theorising until a 1997 Esquire article titled "I Was a Conservative Hit Man" in which he recanted his claims. In 1998 he went further and personally apologized to Clinton. Brock was let go from the Spectator and published his 2002 book Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.[7]

In the late 1990s, Ruddy and Farah turned their focus to the internet with help from Scaife. Ruddy founded NewsMax and Farah started World Net Daily to further promote conservative causes in the media. Eventually, Scaife became an investor and the third-largest stockholder of NewsMax [8]. Both featured and still feature stories about conspiracies surrounding the Clintons, liberals, gays and Democrats.
Scaife: Funding Father of the Right

Richard Mellon Scaife
Conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. (AP)
By Robert G. Kaiser and Ira Chinoy
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 2, 1999; Page A2

...... Scaife has funded other Clinton efforts as well: Two zealous and resourceful (and rival) public interest law firms that have pursued Clinton and his administration relentlessly, the Landmark Legal Foundation and Judicial Watch, have received more than $4 million from Scaife. Judicial Watch, which is aggressively suing several branches of the government and has questioned numerous White House officials under oath, has received $1.35 million from Scaife sources in the last two years, a large fraction of its budget.

The Fund for Living American Government (FLAG), a one-man philanthropy run by William Lehrfeld, a Washington tax lawyer who has represented Scaife in the past, <b>gave $59,000 to Paula Jones's sexual harassment suit against Clinton.</b> FLAG has received at least $160,000 in Scaife donations. And lawyers who belong to the conservative <b>Federalist Society, which has enjoyed Scaife support for 15 years (at least $1.5 million), were members of a secretive group who provided important legal advice to Paula Jones</b> and who may have <b>pulled off the key legal maneuver in the Clinton case by connecting the Jones suit and the Starr investigation.</b> ........
mercifully...but much later....David Brock "switched sides", exposed the rightwing "Op" against the Clintons, and then created: http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors

....or maybe...Ustwo, you're still smarting from that awful Clinton pardon of fugitive billionaire, Marc Rich? :
Marc Rich (born Marc David Reich on December 18, 1934) is a billionaire international commodities trader who fled the United States in 1983 to live in Switzerland in order to avoid prosecution on charges of tax evasion and illegally making oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis. He received a controversial presidential pardon from President of the United States Bill Clinton in 2001, which required him to pay a $100 million dollar fine before the charges would be dropped.

Most recently, Marc Rich was linked to former United States Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby served as Rich's lawyer as far back as 1985 and charged him US$2 million for legal fees.
March 2, 2001
Web posted at: 3:15 a.m. EST (0815 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff testified Thursday he believes prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges.

The testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who represented Rich dating back to 1985 but stopped working for him in the spring of 2000, came during a contentious, hours-long House committee hearing into former President Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour pardons.

Earlier in the day, three former White House advisers all said they recommended that the Rich pardon be denied, but that they supported Clinton's decision-making process.

Facing intense questioning from Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pennsylvania, Libby hedged on whether he thought Clinton's pardon was justified, infuriating the congressman.

"Did you represent a crook who stole money from the United States government, was a fugitive and should never have been given or granted a pardon by the facts that you know?" snapped Kanjorski.

"No, sir," Libby responded. "There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client based on the tax returns."

Libby then said prosecutors from the Southern District of New York "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they prosecuted Rich.

"(Rich) had not violated the tax laws," said Libby.

At a later point, Libby said he thought Rich was a traitor for his company engaging in trades with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. "I did not condone it, I didn't advise it, I don't admire it," he said.....
......not much "untoward" to see here, Ustwo. Just a two term president who was demonized by wealthy conservative republican extremists, hounded for eight years by the special prosecutor that their "Arkansas Project" spawned, and finally trapped into lying about his private sexual activity in a sworn deposition in a lawsuit that the extremists financed. The lies about his personal sexual activities were the core of the grounds for an impeachment trial that the republican controlled house of rep. prosecuted against Clinton, and the senate acquitted him. This was the same sort of "Op" as the campaign in 1993 to stop Clinton's attempts to draft a health insurance plan for nearly 27 million uninsured Americans:
<b>The National Mood</b>
In the initial months of the Clinton Administration, the public had a limited amount of confidence in the new president. Following two failed Attorney-General nominations, a Republican filibuster of the first part of the Clinton economic plan, and a controversy over gays in the military, the nation was in a skittish mood, but open to health reform[26]......

In one of Clinton's initial polls on health care, most individuals were unhappy with their personal health coverage. Two-thirds of voters were dissatisfied with the overall health-care system.

.........The No Name Coalition, started by the Conservative Christian Coalition and National Taxpayers Union placed negative editorials in The Wall Street Journal and used conservative media persons like Rush Limbaugh to wage an intensive war against Clinton’s plan. In the end, the Coalition grew to include more than 30 organizations. Not including additional money by corporations and other associations, public records show that the Coalition spent over $100 million dollars fighting against Clinton’s plan............
If you are finished with the well..."Clinton did it", knee jerk response to the OP for this thread...can you answer these two questions? Would Bush fair as well as Clinton did if a special counsel was set up, with unlimited time and an unlimited budget, to investigate him and all of his appointees?

Was it appropriate for the republican house to almost instantly launch an inquiry into the "routine" end of term pardons that Clinton signed, just as Bush '41 had done before him...yet to, this day, ignore the disclosures and guilty pleas of Cunningham and Abramoff, and the indictment of Delay, showing no interest in launching congressional investigations or to legislate meaningful lobbying reform?

Compared to what Clinton tried to do to represent what is best for me, what is Bush or the republican congress doing, or
done...besides burdening my descendants with $4 trillion in new debt and a dismantled progressive income tax policy that might have mitigated servicing interest payments on that debt?

Last edited by host; 05-12-2006 at 12:10 AM..
host is offline  

31%too, bush, complicated, explain, liberal, press, scandals

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:01 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54