Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Oh look, the WSJ Opinion lied about Clinton's motive for replacing US Atty. Sorry, Oro you've been duped again | |
|
Author: Mo' Green |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:29:17 03/18/07 Sun The WSJ falsely intimadated that Clinton fired the GOP era Arkansas US Attt to avoid Whitewater prosections: "Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784 Problem is the republican US atty that Clinton replaced had already concluded "no prosecutable (Whitewater) case existed" exposing the WSJ Opinion for the propaganda piece it is. "On Oct. 8 [1992], [Attorney General William] Barr convened a joint FBI-Justice Department panel to examine the referral [naming the Clintons as witnesses in the Whitewater case]. But the panel concluded that the referral "failed to cite evidence of any federal criminal offense." The panel's comment about the referral ranged from "junky" and "half-baked" to that its allegations were "reckless, irresponsible" and "odd." Nevertheless, Barr put a preliminary investigation into motion and ordered Banks to review it again and to report back by Oct. 16, two weeks before the Nov. 3 election. But, in fact, Banks had already concluded, and the FBI in Little Rock had agreed, that "no action should be taken on the referral at that time." Banks had already prosecuted Jim McDougal in 1990 for alleged bank crimes, and McDougal had been acquitted. Banks said further that he believed "no prosecutable case existed against any of the witnesses," most notably the Clintons." The entire article with more damnation against the WSJ's assertion can be found at: http://www.salon.com/news/1998/02/cov_24news2.html [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |