Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I dont see any reports on chinese donations and you didnt link to one nor do I think chinese donations are illegal. I didnt see you provide all this "proof" of a crime committed. You submitted somthing saying a person who donated money also had direct ties to the chinese govt, where is the crime exactly?
Israel has numerous public and open ties to american jewish lobby groups who donate like crazy to political campaigns and their mission is clear and they state openly that their agenda and priority is nation other than the US. They have direct ties to the Israeli govt. Those donations result in Israel being the number 1 country we give money to, we give Israel more money that ANY OTHER nation and Egypt is second and that money is provided to assure that Egypt keeps good ties and relations with Israel (so its actually money for Israel and is certainly bribe money) but I doubt anyone will go to jail over that either.
Secondly, in the cases I highlight there have been prosecutions but there have also been political pardons, certainly plenty of guilty that werent charged, as well as light sentencing. Its the standard corruption, we catch em, big scandal and then the sentencing or lack therof is the next corrupt step we deal with but by then the apathetic public is hit with the next scandal and stands there drooling in apathy at their television.
You dont even seem to be very aware of the Iran Contra scandal and its been common knowledge since then that the CIA participated in drug trafficing (as well as other illegal activities). There were convictions, about half were pardoned and one had his conviction overturned on a technicality...that info is in the links I provided and are a matter of public record.
No Iran Contra did not lead to Drug charges, the people charged and convicted were on providing money and on providing weapons and in fact one of the convictions, against Oliver North was for none of that, he accepted a security system to protect his family, which is illegal, as a member of the Military and as an employee of the Government he was not allowed to accept that "gift". See as how your claims are well after Bush was out of Office, explain again why Clinton would pardon Republicans?
Are you honestly so uninformed? The drug trafficing was accepted as fact due to the amount of evidence which is why it was affirmed in the conclusions. No one got the true sentences they deserved, but thats what is to be expected from a corrupt govt in charge of policing itself and an apathetic public who does nothing about it.
You want me to defend Clinton? Why? I already stated he is just as slimy as the rest. I dont hold Clinton in any esteem, I think he is owned by the same puppet masters that own both parties. I am not about to defend Clinton he is as indefensible as the rest.
This partisan game is a sham, its great at keeping the illusion of democracy while the corruption goes on unabated, it seems to me you fall for it hook, line and sinker.
How old where you in the 90's? Just curious how you have never heard of this is all.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199803/ai_n8791199
ead the first quote in my signature, it pretty much covers your "conclusions"
Not really. You keep bringing up Clinton for some reason and it seems you are under some impression that I will feel a need to defend him and rather than deal with the issues raised in my posts you think it might work if you can put me on the defensive over Clinton. Even after I tell you I am not a fan of Clintons you dont absorb it and come back again about Clinton, which is just plain odd.
You are like some floundering fish about now just flopping all over.
Wrong, you have made a claim that is not backed up by evidence. There are LOTS of government rep[orts put out. Failing any legal action there is NO legal basis to claim anyone in the Reagan or Bush whitehouse participated in drug running. Or that they knew it was going on.
Now I do believe the CIA would stoop to that. They do a lot of patently illegal things all the time. Its a far cry from the CIA doing it and the White House knowing about it, or members of the White House.
When you bring me a legal charge and conviction or plea out, THEN you will have facts. Clinton is important because YOUR reports are from the 1990's AFTER 1992. Bush was not President then, Clinton was. You have claimed these people were pardoned for DRUG RUNNING. Clinton would have had to do that. Please provide this fact. Show me where Clinton pardoned any of Bush's staff or employees. Bush Pardoned them for their possible involvement in the weapons charges and the supposedly disobeying Congress thing.
That pardon would NOT cover drug running. A pardon only covers specific things. You can not pardon someone ahead of time. Now if your going to argue that Bush's pardon was for ALL acts involved in Iran-Contra please provide the statement from Bush that it included sanctioned drug running.
After Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh's appointment in December 1986, 14 persons were charged with criminal offenses. Eleven persons were convicted, but two convictions were overturned on appeal. Two persons were pardoned before trial and one case was dismissed when the Bush Administration declined to declassify information necessary for trial. On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., and Robert C. McFarlane.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/summpros.htm
You will see charges that give a generalized "aiding the contras" where they dont have to specific about what help that is.
Still not even the point. I gave links where DEA agents testified to the CIA connection to drug trafficing and the testimony was verified by the courts to be truthful. The traces of drugs on the CIA planes that were used to help the contras was also in evidence. Just because the corrupt dont actually police themselves as they should dosent change the laws they broke nor the trafficing of drugs they participated in.
The facts are also that during this time there was a BIG BOOM of cocaine to hit the US which was also the drug that the Contras were trafficing in and there is very solid evidence that says our own CIA helped facilitate much of that to gain strides in political goals they were tasked with in another nation.
They werent simple govt reports...we have court testimony, we have DEA and CIA eyewitnesses and informants, we have paper trails (cia paying people who were drug running and even under investigation for drug running WHILE the cia had them on the payroll) and we have the senate comittee findings.
Thats a lot of evidence to overlook at write off as "well they didnt punish themselves for it so the evidence must be bogus".
You will also see the pardons had nothing to do with the slimeball clinton, not that he wouldnt have obliged, I am sure he would have if needed.
When the US govt is caught in a scandal, we get a dog and pony show but no one really gets punished and we have plenty of people like you that will assume it must be ok then and not that serious afterall.
You seem the most against the access of drugs yet fail to deal with the fact that we wont fix the problem with our current criminalization policy nor will we fix it when parts of our govt actually BENEFIT and HELP the trade while we pay yet another dept to STOP it. Its a CIRCUS and we citizens are the suckers PT Barnum talked about.
So you have backed off the claim that the Reagan and Bush admins had anything to do with drugs? Good. Already agreed with you that the CIA could have done it.
And I see your not claiming any high level Reagan or Bush person was pardoned for drug running, good again.
The CIA has a history of doing what it wanted with and without proper authority, with and without Admins or Congress knowing about it. And they do things AGAINST Presidents and Admins they do not like also.
exactly. the CIA is no more an independent entity that carries out actions without the blessings of the white house any more that the DoD invades countries without telling the president.
and if, by chance, any president gives the CIA the guidance to not tell him about their more sordid activities, he is tacitly approving them and is as completely responsible for them as he would be for our military if it did something on its own.
You have said that point more succinctly and better than I did for certain.
You have said that point more succinctly and better than I did for certain.
The two of you can carry on this love fest all you want. To claim the CIA does not operate without the knowledge of the admin is both a lioe and historically inaccurate. But to pretend otherwise.
I must assume then, using your logic that President Bush WANTED the CIA to create the furor over a non secret agent being "outed" and his Admin embarressed. Yes?
And the pardons, the refusal to declassify documents, etc are all a show of non-support?
I think how the executive branch behaves when the wrong doings are brought to light (or to their attention) reveals their stance. The Reagan/Bush admins were clear that they did all they could to help the perpetrators. They gave out pardons, refused to de-classify documents etc. We also have the evidence that even though it was PUBLIC knowledge that the contras were terrorists and drug runners that Reagan continued to task the CIA with assisting them. The CIA was doing what the admins ASKED them to do.
We can play dumb and not notice the obvious connections, but that wouldnt be wise. The Reagan/Bush admins were both firmly set on their goals in nicaragua and with the contras, no matter the boland amendment, no matter the slaughters committed by the contras, no matter the drug trafficing...it was quite clear how committed those admins were and that they were quite willing to break US laws to do it.
The CIA and those particular admins were quite harmonious.
In other words, other then your claim, you have no evidence that anyone outside the CIA had any knowledge, made any order or task the CIA with running drugs. Thanks for playing.
The two of you can carry on this love fest all you want. To claim the CIA does not operate without the knowledge of the admin is both a lioe and historically inaccurate. But to pretend otherwise.
I must assume then, using your logic that President Bush WANTED the CIA to create the furor over a non secret agent being "outed" and his Admin embarressed. Yes?
Yup no bias there.
