someone has some 'splaining to do.

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
I saw the author, when this story first came out, on Hannities show. He got them under the FOIA as he was writing a book on Kerry (a pro book by the way. the man said he is a Kerry supporter). He said he notified the Kerry campaign of the "explosive" information in the files and the next thing he new, his house was broken into and the files were stolen. But they only stole specific files. Whoever it was, they knew exactly what they were looking for.

also convenient. now the question would be...

since these files were obtained under the FOIA, they should be photocopies, right? The FBI would not be stupid enough to send their only copies of an investigative file, would they?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
From the Telegraph article.....



Why would the GOP steal files that could be damaging to Kerry? By doing that, they would prevent the truth from getting out, which would help them. This statement makes absolutely no sense other than being partisan in nature.

agreed. it makes no sense at all. In fact, if the GOP wanted the truth to come out then they would simply make the FOIA themselves, these files were only 'copies', right?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
agreed. it makes no sense at all. In fact, if the GOP wanted the truth to come out then they would simply make the FOIA themselves, these files were only 'copies', right?

From what I heard on the Hannity's show, they were the ORIGINALS. But I can't find anything that says that. I agree that they should be copies.... but who knows..... he got the records in 1998.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
From what I heard on the Hannity's show, they were the ORIGINALS. But I can't find anything that says that. I agree that they should be copies.... but who knows..... he got the records in 1998.

I have to believe that they were copies. The FBI is not that negligent, at least I hope not. another nagging thought is why would anyone be requesting records on kerry in 98 if he wasn't running for president?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I have to believe that they were copies. The FBI is not that negligent, at least I hope not. another nagging thought is why would anyone be requesting records on kerry in 98 if he wasn't running for president?

because he knew he would be running. do you think these books just pop out of somebodies head? I am not saying that Kerry directly hired the guy to write the book, but I bet the guy was asked to write the book by somebody close to Kerry. Books are all part of the big PR machine.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
because he knew he would be running. do you think these books just pop out of somebodies head? I am not saying that Kerry directly hired the guy to write the book, but I bet the guy was asked to write the book by somebody close to Kerry. Books are all part of the big PR machine.

then could we assume that bush knew he was going to be running in 96?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
then could we assume that bush knew he was going to be running in 96?

he was gov of tx but too amuse.... yes

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
he was gov of tx but too amuse.... yes

then my original post has SOME meaning, does it not?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
then my original post has SOME meaning, does it not?

i guess i am dumb. please explain how you have circled this back to support your initial original post.

 

[DKSuddeth]

:sigh:, nm then.

 

[lilcountriegal]

From the Telegraph article:

Within days of the tip-off, Kerry aides arrived in Corte Madera, just north of San Franciso, to collect photocopies of the 1971 document.

Obviously the Democrats are admitting to photocopying the original documents prior to them being (conveniently) stolen. Cant they be forced, through legal means or what have you, to reproduce those documents since the 'originals' were stolen? You would think the FBI would want something back.

 

[NATO AIR]

one thing is for certain that is being missed here:

i don't see the miltiary, at any time in its history, as corrupt, unreliable, untruthful and a danger to American society. if the miltiary said something about some candidate (or military records said something) i would give them the benefit of the doubt for a while at least.

i refuse to believe anything the FBI put on paper, audio, whatever! from the mid 60's until the mid 70's.... they were out of control, a danger to the justice system and to innocent American people, intolerantly abusive and disturbingly corrupt. i wouldn't believe them on Nixon, Bush, Kerry, Jesus, anybody... without 100% actual factual backing that could be overwhelmingly proven in a court of law.

you think the FBI is pathetic today? see how they were in the mid 60's to mid 70's time period.