"WHOOPS!" 9-11 Victims/Saudi Lawsuit: CNN "forgot" to mention....

their ATTORNEY'S NAME!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/17/saudis.lawsuit/index.html

Typical media "spin," this article mentions the lawsuit, and the egregrious fact that those SAUDI"s are trying to claim immunity from prosecution due to "diplomatic immunity," but neglects to mention the fact that they are being represented by...

BUSH FAMILY CONSIGLIERE....JAMES A. BAKER the 3RD!!!!

That's right! Baker Botts is representing the Saudi's AGAINST the Americans! Is this a friggin' 9-11 Smoking Gun or what? Like much of the Media's 9-11 Spin, they're doing the "limited hangout" technique of seeming to publish explosive revelations, yet they spin it away from Bush Complicity, and pin it all on his biz partners, the Saudis. Too bad they don't mention that Bush Family Attorney JIM BAKER is their lawyer

James Baker Defending Saudis against 9-11 Families' Lawsuit - MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/news/901320.asp?cp1=1

and today's CNN Article "neglecting" to mention his name or law firm...

Saudi princes seek immunity against 9/11 lawsuits

Victims' families say they knew donations went to al Qaeda


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lawyers representing two Saudi princes argued Friday that their clients have immunity from lawsuits relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, because they are diplomatic officials.

Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz and Prince Turki al-Faisal, formerly head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, have been sued by hundreds of relatives of the victims, who allege that they knowingly contributed money and support to al Qaeda through Islamic charitable organizations.

The $1 trillion lawsuit says members of the Saudi royal family paid protection money to Osama bin Laden's group to keep it from carrying out terror attacks in Saudi Arabia.

(SNIP)

Captain Mike

:smoke: :bounce:

of the attorney who questioned Kobe Bryant's accuser's sexual history, don't we? That's important for some reason. But James Baker? Who cares?

must've slipped through the 'filter'. I'm sure if we contact CNN they will clear this right up

:D

not

they had no problem telling us who the lawers representing the victims were!! :grr:

I've noticed that "in general" that the Media tends to not name the Law firm that is representing a "big name" client for whatever reasons. Perhaps the "Smedlap, Snorik, Freeto, Weasley, and Snort LLP" is just too damn long for the media to report on. They might mentioned the invididual lawyer who is representing a client, but they tend to leave the firm's name out of most stories.

1) Just how big a brothel of media whores CNN has become, and ...

2) Just how much anticipation I have for Michael Moore's next film about the inter-familial relationship between the houses of Bush and bin Laden. He mentions it in his latest book, too!

B-)

Soon, Baker's name will be mysteriously dropped from future revisions.

CNN.com/feedback

let 'em know their COMPETITOR is telling the damned truth!!!

my letter:

per your story at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/17/saudis.lawsuit/index.html I cannot help but notice that, while you took the steps to name the lawyers for the plaintiffs, you seemed to have "mistakenly" left out the name of the firm defending the Saudis. Fortunately your rivals at MSNBC were more thorough, and wrote here:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/901320.asp?cp1=1

that the law firm is none other than Baker Botts.
Could your ommission have anything to do with the fact that James Baker is a good friend of the Bush family? Or perhaps it was their role in representing the Bush campaign in the lawsuit Bush vs. Gore in 2000?

This must be part of that "filter" the president was rambling about last week.

I never thought such a trusted news organization would allow its integrity to be compromised by petty political considerations, and I will be sure to take any story I see on CNN.com with 2 grains of salt from now on. You are no longer reliable OR trustworthy. If I want news that's filtered so as not to offend George Bush, I can get that at FOX. I expected better from CNN.

:toast:

it's nearly impossible to look at ALL of the data and not conclude LIHOP

:grr:


Bush,
we know

Welcome!

Keep reading learning and SHARING with everyone you can think of.

One of their legal eagles helped Georgie with his Harkin problem back in 1989 and of course, Baker had his own cameo appearance for the 2000 election. That Baker is a sleazy character, like his buddy Cheney.

Of course, this has NOTHING to do with terrorism, right? IT's just BUSINESS, okay? Nothing to do with sponsoring or funding terrorism or profiting from the deaths of Americans or covering up any possible role that The Bush Cabal had in it, okay? NOTHING TO SEE HERE, FOLKS. JUST MOVE ON!

Captain Mike

EOM

KICK!

:kick:

decided to represent the Saudis? Hillary would be crucified on Capital Hill (preferably on a Friday afternoon at 3:00PM) before she could even issue an offical statement.

of the vitriol and 'treason' charges that we would be hearing about RIGHT NOW ON 24/7 TV if it had been Rose Law...

:crazy:

That this will never be reported in the "mainstream" press, and will not be considered to be a big deal.

- One could easily come to the conclusion that an opposition party doesn't exist.

- It's strange the way the Bushies can do ANYTHING without ever suffering any kind of consequences. Baker gets a free ride from the 'family values' Republican party because he was instrumental in keeping Gore out of the White House by any means necessary. The PNAC agenda had to move forward and Baker and the Neocons on the Supreme Court knew what they had to do.

- Americans have been dumbed-down to the point where none of this means anything to them. Hell...they've already accepted everything the Bushies told them about 9-11. They've even made moo vies documenting just how brave Bush* was on the fateful day.

- It's too late. Rome has fallen.

for voting NO on the 87 billion...

Why wait? America needs to be told that it's government has been hijacked by a gang of defense contractor/big oil gangsters!!

it's up to US to keep this going until the Dems are FORCED to confront it.

Keep going!

Captain Mike

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lawyers representing two Saudi princes argued Friday that their clients have immunity from lawsuits relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, because they are diplomatic officials.

Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz and Prince Turki al-Faisal, formerly head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, have been sued by hundreds of relatives of the victims, who allege that they knowingly contributed money and support to al Qaeda through Islamic charitable organizations.

The $1 trillion lawsuit says members of the Saudi royal family paid protection money to Osama bin Laden's group to keep it from carrying out terror attacks in Saudi Arabia.

wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that JAMES BAKER III is defending the Saudi families? wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that JAMES BAKER III is the lawyer for GWB?

and (some of us) still wonder why any serious 9/11 investigation has been stonewalled by the Bush administration, the same administration that allowed it's Saudi business friends to escape investigation days after 9/11.

I guess it gave you all at CNN a little more airtime for the worthless KOBE coverage!

don't ya know. :eyes: Another good letter! :toast:

stick it to the Wolf!

Captain Mike

nostamj.

And another excellent post again CaptainMidnight.

These scum hide in plane sight with the media's blessing. Enough.

Jax

"Why is former Secretary of State James Baker representing the Saudi Family in law suit brought by 911 survivors?"

Is a high rolling member of the Carlyle Gang which does business with the Saudis. Poopie Bush heads the gang. Does that answer your question?

Iraq owes Saudi a lot of money, which I'm sure part belongs to the Carlyle boys.

is he? Ahh, the aroma! :kick:

this for today!

Captain Mike

for Howard Hughes

http://www.willgriffin.com/hughes.htm

1. Why was it James A. Baker III, who was chosen to be immediately dispatched to Florida to stop the recounts in the 2000 presidential election, even predicting that the matters would get mired in the courts? Wasn't it Baker who was the first to file an action with the court, to stop the legal counting of votes? Why did James A. Baker appear in front of the camera more times than George W. Bush & Dick Cheney, until Vice President Gore conceded?

?

2. Is it a coincidence that another law firm with profound Hughes interests (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher) would send a law partner (Ted Olson) to present the case before the U.S. Supreme Court? Is it proper then for President Bush to appoint Ted Olson as the Solicitor General, who is the person who represents the Executive Branch before the U. S. Supreme Court? Is it a coincidence that this is the same law firm that Ken Starr spent so many years working at as a partner?

3. What would you think the following may have in common? Ken Starr, James A. Baker III (who is a former, Sec. of State, Sec. of the Treasury, and twice White House Chief of Staff under Presidents Reagan and Bush), Enron (formerly Hughes Tool), Hughes Aircraft, Hughes Electronics, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute? How about fraud, billions of dollars in estate tax fraud, corruption, satellite and missile technologies transfers, the "China-Hughes" Conspiracy, and even including arming Sadaam Hussein in Oct. 1989, and doing so by charging the U.S. taxpayers well over $1 billion dollars to do it?


?

13. Would you be amazed to learn that the long time Houston law partner to Hughes Estate Administrator William Rice Lummis was none other than James Addison Baker III, who served as: (1) President Reagan's White House Chief of Staff; (2) President Reagan's Secretary of the Treasury; (3) President Bush's Secretary of State; (4) President Bush's White House Chief of Staff and thus (5) held high level Cabinet positions from 1981-1993?

14. What would you say if it is shown that Department of State documents exist, which show a communiqué from Mr. Secretary of State James Baker to Sadaam's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, in October, 1989, assuring Sadaam of Baker's "personal interest", in obtaining Dept. of Agriculture's CCC credits, including those which may have been used for Hughes guidance systems in Sadaam's Soviet-built SCUDs and a $1 billion satellite downlink station . . . all at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers?

15. Is it a coincidence that the first company back into Kuwait, post liberation in 1991, was Mr. Starr's former law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the second company back into Kuwait was Enron (formerly Hughes Tool)?

16. Does James Baker owe about 100,000 Gulf War Syndrome Veterans, their families, Saudi Arabia, and the nation of Israel huge explanations and apologies for keeping silent about Sadaam's Hughes-guidance systems enhanced SCUDs, at all material times, even as these missiles attacked our troops and our allies, if it is further shown to be true that Baker knew if he disclosed his knowledge, that his "personal interests" and profiting would be exposed?

17. Did you know that former President Bush signed a "Waiver of Conflict of Interest" on August 8, 1990, for James Baker, then Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney, and others during the Gulf War? Is this kindred to his pardons in the Iran/Contra Affair, as one of his very last acts as President, which effectively killed the investigation?

20. Did you find the "job swap" of James Baker and Donald T. Regan in January, 1985 to be curious?

Because the fact that Baker is representing them is old news, right? Or is this a different suit that he is yet again representing them in.

It think its the same old one, though.

Anyway, thank you for pointing this out. I forgot about that little fact. And it is interesting, in the wording, that they didn't see fit to mention the name of the lawyers or law firm....


THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.


Also, I see while reading this thread that many DUers didn't know about who was representing the Saudi's in this case...

Must be that liberal media again, hiding the truth to help the Rethugs.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003421/posts

They are talking about this too (or they were a few days ago).

But you know the funny thing???

They don't know (or don't care) who is representing the Saudis.

Some comments:

I'll make a deal: You, as diplomats representing the government of your country, can have legal immunity from prosecution for knowingly donating to a terrorist organization, provided that we, as a sovreign country protecting its interests, can destroy the regime which you represent, and bomb it into oblivion like a couple others which we have done likewise to, recently. Deal?
5 posted on 10/18/2003 8:59 AM PDT by coloradan (Hence, etc.)




I hope this lawsuit goes through and the Royal Sand ******'s have to spend millions defending themselves. I'd like to see them lose and have to pay up, but I doubt they'd ever pay a nickle.
Mohammed, The Mad Poet Quoted....
6 posted on 10/18/2003 9:42 AM PDT by PsyOp ( Citizenship ought to be reserved for those who carry arms. - Aristotle.)





WELL, Now; "Diplomatic Immunity!!"
WOW!
DESPITE CLEAR & Irrefutable Evidence that Schools FUNDED BY "Saudi Princes" preach Hatred of America, & Despite Indisputable Proof that Known, openly Declared, anti-Western Terrorist Organizations are ALSO funded by "Saudi Princes," we WESTERN SUCKERS are supposed to believe that the "Hands of the Saudi's" are CLEAN of ANY involvement in Terrorism!!
Well, Heck; I guess us poor Ignorant Fools "in the West" are Simply TOO SIMPLE to understand the subtlties & Complexities of the "Arab Mind!"
NO DOUBT, when we convert Mecca, Medina, & Qom to Radioactive Dust, our "Muslim Bretheren" will--once again--accuse us of "Cultural Insensitivity!"
I HOPE the "Followers of Islam" eventually understand the RAGE I represent.
THINK ABOUT THIS;--there have been NO Christian or Jewish Homicide Bombers, EVER!!
The "Saudi Princes" have helped create a MASSIVE, Cultural Psychopathology.
They are GUILTY of Genocide--& should be so Charged by the International Community!
9 posted on 10/18/2003 4:28 PM PDT by Doc On The Bay



There is some outrage, no?

OF course, they probably envision those defending the Saudis as some liberal lawyer, with "no soul", right?

Who will be the one to tell the FReepers who is defending the Saudis?

I wonder how quick their outrage will die when they find out the horrible truth....



Sorry, any of you lurking FReeper assholes: You have been sold out, you are terribly misinformed, and you are actually proud of how fucking stupid you are.