Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

its the COVER UP. i thought this ironic

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 01:28 PM
Original message
its the COVER UP. i thought this ironic
i was updating husband. reynolds seemed to have been paid 100k in summer from foley. hastert said he didnt know,today he knew. since dc is 16 consent doesnt seem like any law was broken, it is the cover up

i told hubby just getting bigger

then,.... its the cover up

clinton it is the cover up
nixon it is the cover up

reagan.... well reagan, just broke the law
bush.... just broke the law

kinda ironic.

seems like the cover up they get in trouble. break the law?..... get off

what is that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. Reagan covered up too--remember Ollie North and the shredding party?
His admin assistant sneaking documents out in her underwear?

Bush the Elder covered up too--remember the full pardon he gave CAP WEINBERGER when Cap threatened to squeal like a stuck pig? "If I'm going down, I'm not going down alone. Those bastards are coming with me!!!" They didn't call Cap "Cap the Knife" just for his budget-cutting expertise....

Here, a quick overview in one succinct article: http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

But in a single stroke, Mr. Bush swept away one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases, virtually decapitating what was left of Mr. Walsh's effort, which began in 1986. Mr. Bush's decision was announced by the White House in a printed statement after the President left for Camp David, where he will spend the Christmas holiday.

Mr. Walsh bitterly condemned the President's action, charging that "the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed."

Mr. Walsh directed his heaviest fire at Mr. Bush over the pardon of Mr. Weinberger, whose trial would have given the prosecutor a last chance to explore the role in the affair of senior Reagan officials, including Mr. Bush's actions as Vice President.

'Evidence of Conspiracy'

Mr. Walsh hinted that Mr. Bush's pardon of Mr. Weinberger and the President's own role in the affair could be related. For the first time, he charged that Mr. Weinberger's notes about the secret decision to sell arms to Iran, a central piece of evidence in the case against the former Pentagon chief, included "evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public."

The prosecutor charged that Mr. Weinberger's efforts to hide his notes may have "forestalled impeachment proceedings against President Reagan" and formed part of a pattern of "deception and obstruction." On Dec. 11, Mr. Walsh said he discovered "misconduct" in Mr. Bush's failure to turn over what the prosecutor said were the President's own "highly relevant contemporaneous notes, despite repeated requests for such documents."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. ya... but the point both bush and reagan committed the crime they
covered up

nixon did not do the crime. if he hadnt covered up, he wouldnt have gotten in trouble. others would have

clinton didnt committ a crime,.....

foley it appears didnt commit a crime....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Nixon committed crimes in office, not just Watergate, but beyond
Edited on Sun Oct-01-06 02:27 PM by MADem
We aren't just talking about coverups, here. Let's take a trip back through time:

Nixon ordered Watergate break-in, ex-aide says
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former White House counsel John Dean said Sunday there's at least a "shred of evidence" to support a new allegation that President Nixon ordered the Watergate break-in.

The widespread belief is that Nixon was forced to resign because of his role covering up the break-in, but that he didn't order the crime to begin with.

Jeb Stuart Magruder, who was Nixon's deputy campaign director, says he heard the president tell John Mitchell, who was running Nixon's re-election campaign in 1972, to go ahead with a plan to break into the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate complex and bug the party chairman's phone.

Magruder, in a PBS documentary set to be broadcast Wednesday and in an Associated Press interview last week, says he was meeting with Mitchell on March 30, 1972, when he heard Nixon tell Mitchell over the phone to go ahead with the plan...Dean told CNN on Sunday that he was surprised by Magruder's revelation but has since found an intriguing White House tape he thinks might bolster Magruder's claim.

"It's something I had never heard before Magruder made it, and I can't say that I have any evidence that right," Dean said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." "I can't say I have any evidence that he is wrong."


And then, there was his misuse of the FBI for political purposes. Remember the "Enemies List?" He also liked to use the IRS to pick on people, which is a CRIME: http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/jews.htm

Nixon Orders the Government to go after "Rich Jews"

According to recently released Whitehouse tapes, President Nixon pushed for IRS tax audits of wealthy Jewish contributors to his Democratic rivals, demanding of a top aide, "What about the rich Jews?...Go after'em like a son of a bitch."

"You know the big Jewish contributors to the Democrats. Could we please investigate some of the (expletive)? That's all," he tells another aide.

Nixon tells John Ehrlichman: "John, we have the power. Are we using it to investigate contributors to Hubert Humphrey, contributors to Muskie--the Jews, you know, that are stealing in every direction?"

"Now here's the point, Bob," Nixon tells Bob Haldeman, "please get me the names of the Jews. You know, the big Jewish contributors to the Democrats. Could we please investigate some of the (expletives)? that's all."


And he clearly ordered this burglary--it's on TAPE: http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/burglary.htm

Tapes: Nixon Sought Brookings Break-In

by Joan Biskupic, Washington Post, Nov. 22, 1996

President Nixon ordered a break-in and theft at the Brookings Institution in June 1971 so he could learn what information the public policy center had collected on the Vietnam war, according to newly released White House tapes.

In a conversation that took place a year before the Watergate break-in that eventually drove him from office, Nixon told Chief of Staff H.R.Hadelman to "break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them out....I want a break-in. I want the Brookings safe cleaned out. And have it cleaned out in a way that makes somebody else look bad.''

At one point, with characteristic gruffness and punctuating each word, Nixon said, "You go in to inspect...and clean it out....I want Brookings, just break in, break in, and take it out. You understand."

Hadelman's responded by saying: "I don't have any problem with breaking in."

The Senate Watergate Committee report detailed the White House's concern that Brookings was planning a study based on Vietnam papers similar to those that had been leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post. The Panel took testimony that Nixon aide Charles W. Colson planned to firebomb the building and steal the documents, an allegation Colson denied....


Nixon was every bit as evil as the Monkey. The difference was Nixon was SMART, he had foreign policy skills, but he couldn't be bothered with the push and pull of a domestic agenda. And sprinkled amongst the bright bulbs in his employ, he had a bunch of GOONS on his staff. The Monkey, on the other hand, is OBTUSE...he's cunning, but not nuanced. And his staff is peppered with the lazy, the entitled and the mediocre. It's a fucking recipe for disaster. There are NO adults in charge.


AND ON EDIT--Foley DID commit a crime. Read the legislation he co-authored. Soliciting that child over the internets is illegal. You don't have to put the organ into an orafice to make it a crime anymore....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. What ever it is, it looks BAD! Protecting a child predator. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. i agree totally. not only "looks" bad is. and not telling dems to protect
dems kids to me is the worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. The federal age is 17
It appears the Communications Decency Act is what is used to prosecute cybersex crimes. The federal age is 17 years or older. It doesn't matter what local legal ages are, this is a federal crime. Which was also covered up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. thank you sandsea. i didnt see a crime at 16. but god to know the
facts. fed at 17 so what foley did is a CRIME. correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I'm still researching
There's a patchwork of laws, and some have had some parts overturned by the Supreme Court. Some state 17, but the law Foley just passed appears to be targeted at kids under 12 and added the requirment that the age of the victim be included in any registration. That's fine because we do need to differentiate between the 19-16 yo romance and predators. So I don't know what this new law did in regards to other laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. thanks sand. i will keep my eyes open n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
8. We need to hear more from Hastert and Boner, why they screwed up??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC