|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: Treason. |
 |
|
TREASON and COVERUP
| Quote: |
...Separately, they invoked the retroactive classification order on Congress and this was for the Senate Judiciary committee in May 2004 - and the way the imposed this gag order - and I have to emphasize that this gag order was illegal, because in order for them to retroactively classify congressional investigations, the Attorney General for the Justice Department had to meet three criteria and he did not. But even though the gag order was illegal, at that time in May 2004, the Senate Judiciary committee complied with it, they complied with an illegal gag order.
But I've never had a gag order placed on me as far as the public statements, or any other investigative procedures are concerned, but as you know they have declared everything in my case, including my languages, and what I did for the FBI, classified. Now the question is whether this classification that they're using is even legal, or justified. As you know the executive branch has complete control over the classification...
The other important case (that I reported on), had to do with certain public officials, corruption cases, that the FBI had obtained - and again, this was the operation that was taking place between 1997 and 2002 - and I�m talking about solid evidence. And these officials are high-profile public officials.
Swanson: People as high as say Congressman Denny Hastert?
Edmonds: Well, that information has been public, with the Vanity Fair article, and he was only one of the people, at least from the elected officials side - one of several. And they had at least 2 or 3 people in the Pentagon (ed: Feith and Perle), and they had at least one person in the State Department (ed: Marc Grossman) - and they had this documented information, evidence, on these people actually not serving the interests of the United States - and giving out extremely sensitive information to other...
Swanson: To Turkey.
Edmonds: Well, when you say "Turkey" - not necessarily the government of Turkey that we consider an ally, but to entities that who are driven by certain interests - many of them financial interests that have to do with the military industrial complex - and they had this information, and those same individuals - not the ones from Congress necessarily, but the ones from the State Dept and Pentagon. (ed: Perle, Feith, Grossman)
...information that will let the public know that here we have appointed officials and elected officials who are out there engaged in treason!
Now, some people may consider the way I'm characterising this as maybe outrageous, or an exaggeration, but I don't know what else to call it, David. When you have people, for greed, for money, selling out information, covering up cases, giving out our true State Secrets information to entities - whether or not they're allies, Israel or Turkey or Pakistan - these people are engaged in treason.
And these cases are documented, the files, the wiretaps, go back to 1997, 1998. They are documented, there are documents, there are witnesses and we need to expose these people and we need to see criminal indictments against these people - and it will (happen). All we need is for this hearing to take place, for people to testify, and for the documents to be introduced, then you're going to see criminal indictments against these people...
This case is not allegation, it's not a case that needs to be investigated, that has already been done. Even the Dept of Justice's own Inspector General's Office has put out a report vindicating the case. We have had bipartisan congressional statements saying that this is credible, and absolutely confirming it. So this is not taking something that is unknown. He's the Chairman, he has the power, there's nothing that stands in his way, this is a confirmed case, let's see some justice and accountability.
...I don't want anything my job, about why I was fired, about why they did these wrongdoings - yes, they did it to me, that is me personally being affected, and it also sends a chilling message to other whistleblowers - but that is secondary. The most important thing is there are individuals who are engaged in acts of treason, okay. People from the State Dept, people from the Pentagon - some of these individuals are already under some quasi-investigations. I mean, we hear things about Douglas Feith, we are hearing things about Richard Perle, but trust me, they are not putting everything that there is out there. Because when you are looking at organizations like the American Turkish Council here, and you see the sister organization is AIPAC. AIPAC helped form the American Turkish Council - look at the board members, look at the people. You will see the same people involved in both fronts, because it is the same operation. And you come across the same individuals over and over again. You know, I don't understand how the case only ended up stopping with Larry Franklin - and I still can't believe that the evidence that they had from the parallel investigation didn't get its way into the court. You need to look at individuals like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Marc Grossman, Dennis Hastert, and others. And documented evidence they have collected on these people. What are they doing with this information? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And a lot more.........
Maybe not treason but this Gonzales thing just reeks of the worst. I never , never thought it could be worse than the swindling of millions but .......
But then again, they have to have a getaway plan. And I just hope to hell there is a memo or something going back to George regarding him laying down the law about getting "the U.S. attorneys" on board his stinking ship.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/14/news/justice.php
| Quote: |
Bush 'not happy' about firings of U.S. attorneys
But Bush affirms confidence in Gonzales |
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush said Wednesday that he was "not happy" about the way his Justice Department had handled the firing of U.S. attorneys, but he said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales retained his confidence.
Still, Bush's tone, as well as his comments, indicated annoyance and displeasure. |
Typical of Bush, the bully. Annoyed that he can't swing his mace and malic freely.......Big baby that could use a very big grounding.
And people criticize those who outline how much the United States has become dictatorial......I mean this reminds me of some banana republic, where all the President's men are in all the positions of importance.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Canadian clowns, Don't you know that US Attorneys serve at the President's pleasure. For you ignorant Canadians that means he can fire them at will. Keep in mind you bozos that Clinton fired ALL US Attorneys when he took office. Strangely enough, no said a thing about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is only evil when republicans do it.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| Canadian clowns, Don't you know that US Attorneys serve at the President's pleasure. For you ignorant Canadians that means he can fire them at will. Keep in mind you bozos that Clinton fired ALL US Attorneys when he took office. Strangely enough, no said a thing about that. |
To the american clown who claims to know what he's talking about:
EVERY PRESIDENT REPLACES ALL OF THE ATTORNEYS WHEN THEY TAKE OFFICE!!!! Or at least they have the option to.
The issue here is that the Bush admin is using a provision in the patriot act that allows them to by-pass senate confirmation. So, you see, it's not simply a matter of replacing or firing judges, it's a matter of bypassing the entire judicial process, to place partisan prosecutors in positions of power without congressional oversight. This is being done to achieve not justice, but political ends.
Anything else you want to say to prove your ignorance, or should we stop there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me add to the above head slap: it is done as stated above as a mater of course, really. (Why, I don't know. There should be grounds for firing.) But, given that this is the way it is done, it IS imporant exactly how and why things get done.
The USAsG are appointed by the president, confirmed by Congress. (As stated above.) In this manner, the oppostion party has some say in who gets appointed which limits the politicization of the posts.
Under the new law, Congress is bypassed.
Now, the usual way of doing things means that the appointments are made due to one central issue: the changing of the presidency. Same with the cabinet, the same with juges, etc. So far, so good.
The problem HERE is that there was obstruction of justice. The appointments were made due to solely political considerations to either impede or enhance prosecutions. That is obstruction. Even the president can't do that. Yet, he has. Fact. Impeachable offense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
