« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Yesterday, the president played his part. The injustice of Scooter Libby serving one day of jail time for lying to investigators and a grand jury in order to shield the vice president has been averted.
But don't forget that for the past several months, other prominent elements of the Washington establishment have been playing their parts, too. The Scooter Libby Defense Trust has collected close to $5 million, and its many moneyed donors rejoiced at the news, reports The Washington Post:
Former ambassador to Italy and developer Mel Sembler was returning from a fundraiser, and his chartered flight had just touched down in St. Petersburg, Fla."I got off the airplane and picked up my telephone and turned it back on again and found about 12 phone messages," said Sembler, the chairman of the Libby Legal Defense Trust. "I was most pleased with my president."
Richard Carlson, former ambassador to the Seychelles, was standing near his wife when he heard the news from an Associated Press reporter.
"My wife burst into tears," Carlson said.
But, sadly, the hard work the trust's patrons have had to endure (all because of the unquenchable bloodlust of a certain prosecutor) is not over. $5 million is not enough, apparently. Their man is still burdened with a conviction, two years probation, a $250,000 fine (which will not be covered by the fund, Sembler tells the Post), and only Libby's lawyers can save him now. And his lawyers must be paid. So their quest continues.
Who are these champions of justice? A roll call:
The advisory committee of Libby's trust is made up of developers, investors, publishers, think-tankers. There's former senator Fred Thompson, the "Law & Order" star and Republican presidential aspirant -- who even held a fundraiser for Libby at his McLean home, according to Carlson....There are former Cabinet-level officials, including Ed Meese, Jack Kemp and Spencer Abraham. There is conservative thinker Bill Bennett and political philosopher Francis Fukuyama. There's Ron Silver, of "West Wing" fame. There's Mary Matalin, a former Cheney adviser, and Nina Rosenwald, chairwoman of the Middle East Media Research Institute. There is Steve Forbes, who knows a thing or two about writing checks.
Comments (99)
Dan Putnam wrote on July 3, 2007 9:47 AM:But for Scooter, Judy Miller would have never gone to jail, but even 85 days is too long for the Scoot? Bush needs to stop looking into people's souls. It doesn't work!
Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 3, 2007 9:47 AM:It's tough to be white, rich, and well-connected these days. The tribe needs to stick together to survive against the mongrel hordes.
El Borba wrote on July 3, 2007 9:50 AM:I wonder of Judith Miller contributed?
BTW, has anyone sought her opinion on the commutation yet?
DCE wrote on July 3, 2007 9:56 AM:Um...actually, they seem to have been proven to be $5,000,000 worth of chumps. After all, Scooter could have been convicted, sentenced, and quasi-pardoned with a $0 public defender. All their money got them nowhere that they wouldn't otherwise be. Ergo, suckers sunt.
Bert Atkinson wrote on July 3, 2007 9:57 AM:In these days of ipods and iphones, I Scooter = itreason.
Perhaps, this Fourth of July we should all fly our flags upside down. This is not disrespectful to the flag, rather it is standard Naval proceedure when a ship is in serious trouble. Our Ship of State appears to be sinking.
Happy Fourth of July. Celebrate our Constitution while we still have it.
Will White wrote on July 3, 2007 10:00 AM:Just goes to show ... Republicans are Big Babies ... When one of their own faces jail time and all those big bad minorities in prison, god forbid.
What was that "tough on crime" saying from the late 80's ... "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
Bert Atkinson wrote on July 3, 2007 10:00 AM:In these days of ipods and iphones, I Scooter has given us itreason. Maybe this Fourth of July we should all fly our flags upside down. This is not disrespectful of the flag, rather,it is standard Navy proceedure when a ship is in serious trouble. Our Ship of State appears to be sinking.
Go celebrate our Constitution while we still have one. Happy Fourth of July
Varsi Padayachee wrote on July 3, 2007 10:06 AM:First we have terrorists like Bosch geta pardon, then we have another terrorist sunning in Florida, and now we have a convicted liar pardoned by our highly principled and morally focused President. Now that is justice, American Style!
Howard Campbell wrote on July 3, 2007 10:08 AM:Another example of the difficulties white people in America face these days:
"The head of a Mississippi Democratic Party organization illegally suppressed white residents' votes, a federal judge ruled Friday in the first case filed by the Justice Department alleging that whites were subjected to voting discrimination based on their race."
"Wan J. Kim, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department's civil rights division, praised the decision."
WAKE UP, WHITE PEOPLE!!! LIBBY FOR PRESIDENT IN '08!!!
SamD wrote on July 3, 2007 10:10 AM:You have the number of Bush's comment line(202 456-1111). It's a little busy this morning, but try again. They assure us they do want to hear from us and that our message is important.
Keep trying. If logic doesn't work on these guys, maybe volume will.
tomg wrote on July 3, 2007 10:14 AM:I was wonder if this fund was taxable to Libby, and if not why not.
eric wrote on July 3, 2007 10:15 AM:Bush could have saved these people a ton of money if he would have just pardoned Libby right away. I'd be pissed if I had donated - the money was for naught!
RR wrote on July 3, 2007 10:18 AM:Where are the cries against amnesty now? Next time I hear someone get self-righteous about immigration, I'll respond with two words- Scooter Libby.
dzman49 wrote on July 3, 2007 10:19 AM:Hmmm... the aspens are turning as one and it's not even fall!
Legalize wrote on July 3, 2007 10:21 AM:"Bush could have saved these people a ton of money if he would have just pardoned Libby right away. I'd be pissed if I had donated - the money was for naught!"
Well, maybe not. This loot is the same money that is perpetually sloshing around the elite beltway circles. Like with all criminal organizations, the fund will just reconcentrate when the next member gets caught with a dead stripper in his limo.
RobertSeattle wrote on July 3, 2007 10:24 AM:Bush is a Compasionate Conservative... to neocon cronies in his administration.
Dick wrote on July 3, 2007 10:27 AM:And you stupid americans thought you lived in a land where the rule of law applied.
HA! HA! HA!
Happy 4th of July, suckers!
Phoenix Woman wrote on July 3, 2007 10:27 AM:eric @ 10:15 am: Yupper!
TJ wrote on July 3, 2007 10:30 AM:So how many examples do we need of republican, I mean FASCIST criminal, hypocracy, sleezy, etc., activity?! Why isnt the dem leadership pointing some of this out? Why is it we always here from the fascist's harping on the dems for things like the filibuster, etc., when - it's these fascists that are the ones abusing everything, yet they are able to SUCCESSFULLY point the finger at the dems!!!
I dispise these fascists slime balls, but I also dont like being a member of such a whimpie party!
Cant the dems hire someone who knows something about PR & strategy, and can speak out effectively?!
Come on, how much crap from the repub's are they going to take year after year???
Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 10:38 AM:Did anyone catch that Scooter's legal defense website is hosted by Smart Tech Corp and that his fundraising is handled by edonation.com?
Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 10:41 AM:Did anyone catch that Scooter's legal defense website is hosted by Smart Tech Corp and that his fundraising is handled by edonation.com?
Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 10:48 AM:Smart Tech Corp hosts Libby's legal defense fund website and edonation.com handles the money.
Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 10:51 AM:tomg @ 10:14
John Nugent wrote on July 3, 2007 10:54 AM:I've been wondering the same. It would be interesting to see Libby's next tax filing.
Will the public care or notice that Fred Thompson is on the advisory board of the fund?
yellowdogD wrote on July 3, 2007 10:54 AM:tomg @ 1014
Larry Epke wrote on July 3, 2007 10:58 AM:I've been wondering the same. It would be interesting to see Libby's next tax filing.
"There is conservative thinker Bill Bennett..."
Shouldn't there be quotes around "thinker"?
Agathena wrote on July 3, 2007 10:59 AM:Is this what Bush and Bushies meant by 'changing the tone in the White House' way back in 2000 after Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court?
A 'tone' nullifying the decision of the presiding Republican Judge, Republican Judges who refused Irwin's appeal to stay out of jail while his case was being appealed, and casting doubt on the work of Republican appointed US Attorney. A 'tone' signifying that the rule of law does not apply to the Bush and Bushies.
And this is only the beginning. Bush will issue a pardon when his occupancy of the White House is terminated. I'm betting on it.
larryepke wrote on July 3, 2007 11:01 AM:"There is conservative thinker Bill Bennett..."
Shouldn't there be quotes around "thinker"?
joejoejoe wrote on July 3, 2007 11:02 AM:Next time you see Tucker Carlson on MSNBC saying the Libby case was no big deal just remember that his Daddy helps run Scooter Libby's Defense fund and his mommy cried when Libby was 'freed' without spending so much as an afternoon in jail for his conviction on 4 felony counts - obstruction of justice, giving false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and committing perjury twice before the grand jury.
But you won't hear Tucker's mommy and daddy on MSNBC.
bibimimi wrote on July 3, 2007 11:02 AM:MEL SEMBLER---one scary, rich guy. Google his name. He's all over. And he and Joe Lieberman are very tight.
oddly, 'tight' is my security code, too.
that was weird.
bibimimi wrote on July 3, 2007 11:04 AM:MEL SEMBLER---one scary, rich guy. Google his name. He's all over. And he and Joe Lieberman are very tight.
oddly, 'tight' is my security code, too.
that was weird.
LW wrote on July 3, 2007 11:07 AM:I think that we all know Bush and Cheney are crooks. However, they will be gone shortly. I think we need to focus even more attention on the supporters of this perversion of justice. People like Fred "Rule of Law" Thompson and Rudy Guilianni.
LW
Jazzbeaux Beiderbecke wrote on July 3, 2007 11:12 AM:Bush proclaimed the $250,000 fine as punishing (and Snow is making a big deal of it this morning), as if poor Scooter would cough it up on his way to the poor house. But that will be paid by the fat-cat $5 million legal defense fund, for which Fred Thompson was much responsible.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 11:15 AM:And after lingering incidentals to his inept lawyers, the $700-an-hour most odious varity, Scooter will still have $3 million left from the fund for his imminent round-the-world tour of relaxation, rest amd re-adjustment.
Then in a year or so, Bush will issue the complete pardon and Scooter can get into lobbying or law or maybe become a special assistant to a Boone Pickens-type, America's finest, don't you know?
Agathena:
Were you similarly upset about Clinton's pardons when his occupancy of the White House was terminated. I'm betting you weren't.
TJ wrote on July 3, 2007 11:17 AM:Re the above reference to Bush 'changing the tone back in 2000'... sure, whatever sounds good, whatever has that smooth 'moral' tang to it.
I thought everyone knew the repub fascists were full of nothing but lies, catchy sound bites, beat-to-death buzz phrases, cute attack lines, & carefully crafted speeches - among other phoney material & all to appeal & make the other guy look bad. But even more sadly it does appear to work!!
I can only hope for a change more of the non-repub's will start voting - <45% do! If they did, the only 'elected' rebup you could find would be located somewhere out in 'dust-ville, UT.'
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 11:18 AM:According to Sembler in the very story you are posting about, the $250,000 fine will NOT be covered by the fund (there's also a $400 special court fee imposed, but I'm not sure who is covering that).
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 11:20 AM:bibimimi:
That is odd -- 'tight' was your security code twice?
JW wrote on July 3, 2007 11:22 AM:I have called the following numbers and got actual people:
David Addington (Cheney's office): 202 456 9000
Fred Fielding (White House Counselor):202 456 2632
Todd Beyer, Dept. Asst. to Pres.: 202 456 5332
According to the papers, Bush consulted with Fielding, Josh Bolton (whose number is the same as the White House switchboard--202 456 1414) and Dan Bartlett. BTW if you call the switchboard you also talk to a person who passes you on to the comments line 202 456 1111, which is busy.
JW wrote on July 3, 2007 11:26 AM:I have called the following numbers and got actual people:
David Addington (Cheney's office): 202 456 9000
Fred Fielding (White House Counselor):202 456 2632
Todd Beyer, Dept. Asst. to Pres.: 202 456 5332
According to the papers, Bush consulted with Fielding, Josh Bolton (whose number is the same as the White House switchboard--202 456 1414) and Dan Bartlett. BTW if you call the switchboard you also talk to a person who passes you on to the comments line 202 456 1111, which is busy.
Joanne Ward wrote on July 3, 2007 11:27 AM:I have called the following numbers and got actual people:
David Addington (Cheney's office): 202 456 9000
Fred Fielding (White House Counselor):202 456 2632
Todd Beyer, Dept. Asst. to Pres.: 202 456 5332
According to the papers, Bush consulted with Fielding, Josh Bolton (whose number is the same as the White House switchboard--202 456 1414) and Dan Bartlett. BTW if you call the switchboard you also talk to a person who passes you on to the comments line 202 456 1111, which is busy.
Myrna wrote on July 3, 2007 11:29 AM:David Brooks' column in Tuesday's NY Times,("Ending the Farce") celebrates the infinite wisdom of Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence. Brooks' carefully constructed persona as a conservative-leaning moderate has been dropped in favor of playground-style name-calling and personal attacks on Joseph Wilson- both Wilson's name and physical appearance. Some examples: "a strutting little peacock who went by the unimaginative name of Joe Wilson." "an inveterate huckster who could be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six." "As Joe Wilson was an absurd man with a plain name, Scooter Libby was a plain man with an absurd name. And the odder thing was that Libby was the only normal person in the asylum." (When I read that line,I couldn't help thinking of Libby's novel, "The Apprentice," with its detailed descriptions of wierd sexual encounters with animals.)
Myrna wrote on July 3, 2007 11:30 AM:David Brooks cannot deal with the fact that he was mistaken in his support for the Administration's falsehood-driven disaster which is Iraq; so he has reverted into a mud-slinging infant.
David Brooks' column in Tuesday's NY Times,("Ending the Farce") celebrates the infinite wisdom of Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence. Brooks' carefully constructed persona as a conservative-leaning moderate has been dropped in favor of playground-style name-calling and personal attacks on Joseph Wilson- both Wilson's name and physical appearance. Some examples: "a strutting little peacock who went by the unimaginative name of Joe Wilson." "an inveterate huckster who could be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six." "As Joe Wilson was an absurd man with a plain name, Scooter Libby was a plain man with an absurd name. And the odder thing was that Libby was the only normal person in the asylum." (When I read that line,I couldn't help thinking of Libby's novel, "The Apprentice," with its detailed descriptions of wierd sexual encounters with animals.)
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 11:33 AM:David Brooks cannot deal with the fact that he was mistaken in his support for the Administration's falsehood-driven disaster which is Iraq; so he has reverted into a mud-slinging infant.
Déjà Vu.
scott wrote on July 3, 2007 11:35 AM:Don't foget on that list of supporters James Carville. The same James Carville who is sending out requests for funding the DCCC. Somebody needs to explain that to me.
chalmers wrote on July 3, 2007 11:35 AM:If what I read is correct, Thompson has no tie to Libby and might not even know him.
Thompson got involved because he saw this as a cheap, easy way to establish bona fides with the conservative "thinkers" who might distrust him because of his support for McCain-Feingold and his vote to acquit Clinton on one of the impeachment counts.
Looks like it worked.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 11:38 AM:Myrna:
When I read your post, I couldn't help thinking of Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and his novel with its detailed descriptions of wierd sexual encounters between a father and his son. Getting back on topic, is it right or wrong for people to contribute $5 million to support Libby?
Security Code: RIGHT
gcs wrote on July 3, 2007 11:40 AM:" burdened with a conviction, two years probation, a $250,000 fine (which will not be covered by the fund)..."
----
I've learned to read between the lies in the last six years. No, the $250k isn't covered by THIS fund. There's another separate nd wholly secret fund for that. Christ but I hate this illegal cabal of criminals.
By the way, this adminitration has not even pretended to follow one single law it didn't feel like following. So what makes anyone think Cheney and his puppet Bush will simply walk quietly out of the WH on January 9, 2009?
22d amendment? We don't need no steenking 22d amendment...
Mellifluous wrote on July 3, 2007 11:40 AM:On "Rule of Law/Law & Order" Thompson: the issue that trumps all for ol' Southern Country Lawyer is E&R: Election & Re-election. Perfect casting.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 3, 2007 11:42 AM:Jake
YES!!! We ALL are upset about Clinton's pardons, and we are equally upset about his lying about his blow job. He would have done himself and everyone else a favor if he had just related how good Monica actually was. Unlike in Libby's case, there was no underlying crime with Clinton's perjury. There is no statute on the books forbidding consensual sex between two heterosexual adults, although if the religious right continues its assault on our freedoms, one day it may be.
Bong hit for Bush wrote on July 3, 2007 11:43 AM:Mel Sembler ...Made his money brainwashing kids in the 70's from St. Pete Fl. It was funny how his thugs used to roam the parking lots of high schools looking for kids.. Parents who didn't know better called Mel ... my kid's smoking Colombian Gold ....
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 11:51 AM:Mel yous still an asshole !!
scott:
I don't know that Mr. Carville donated any money or was "supporting" Libby in any way other than signing the letter his wife wrote to the Judge re: sentencing.
chalmers:
Who is it that someone can be a chairman of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund and that not qualify as at least one "tie" to Lewis Libby. Have you ever played 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon?
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 11:57 AM:Billy Pilgrim:
I'm not upset about Clinton's pardons -- so I'm sure some of you here were defending him back then too -- we'll see if Agathena responds.
P.S. sexual harrassment in the workplace was against federal law too ; )
Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 3, 2007 12:01 PM:Follow-up on comment to Jake.
Unjustified pardons/commutations have consenquences. Clinton's pardon's of Marc Rich, etc. are remembered and are the one unmovable obstacle to his wife's receiving the nomination in '08.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 12:07 PM:Was Hillary even involved in those pardons?
Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 12:09 PM:Can Fitzgerald question Libby again and start the process anew?
Libby still hasn’t told the truth, right? A new lie is a new crime.
RW wrote on July 3, 2007 12:11 PM:No all of this comes down to the concept that this group of Republicans (Conservatives Without Conscience) are nothing but Tories or America's Privaleged Class or Party. There is no soul, no genuine belief of a rule of law, or governance. I personally spoke with a GOP'er here in Colorado Springs and he was so happy Libby didn't serve and believed he was simply a soldier, and I said but you are a law and order conservative how can you reconcile this. He is part of us....what is us? What about Judy Miller serving 9 months for protecting him? What about lying to a grand jury, not once but repeatable? No conscience.
My hope is that Fitzgerald now recovenes a Grand Jury and subpeona's him offering immunity to testify for the full knowledge. Refusal and he goes back to jail on contempt.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 3, 2007 12:14 PM:Jake
Thank you for your astute remarks. Too bad you saw nothing wrong with the Clinton pardons. Perhaps you live in a moral vacuum like everyone else in the hovel you come from.
DanInAlabama wrote on July 3, 2007 12:14 PM:The big difference between Clinton's lie and Libby's lie:
redford wrote on July 3, 2007 12:20 PM:If Clinton had told the Truth no one would have gone to jail.
If Libby had told the Truth a number of people MAY have gone to jail.
I say "may" only because of the sad state of the Justice System under King George the second.
Libby's commutation proves Cheney is calling the shots, not Bush. Bush isn't trying to keep Libby quiet, Cheney is. Libby was Cheney's #2 and I'm sure has much more damning info. on Cheney, than Bush.
I'm sure Cheney told Bush: George, I don't care what the hell you said publically , don't let this guy go to jail.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 12:25 PM:Billy Pilgrim:
You're welcome. Too bad Democrats saw nothing wrong with the Clinton pardons as well. I live in the same country as those Americans.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 12:29 PM:Dan:
Sexual harassment in the workplace is against federal law and specifically violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I will have to check what the sentencing calls for though.
ng.morris wrote on July 3, 2007 12:56 PM:Excuse me, but if memory serves, the Clinton issue, his "crime" of lying to Congress, was a case of the Republican dominated Congress, having spent +/-$70 million dollars of taxpayer money, cornering him over an issue having NOTHING to do with his governence of the Country. With no justifiable crime to impeach him, they came up with a stained blue dress so they could embarass a sitting President and his family, and demonstrate how morally superior Republicans are. No one says the whole show put on by the so-called Christain-Family Values, Contract with America Republican Congress was a fraud. We are only to remember that Clinton lied. Turns my stomach.
ng.morris wrote on July 3, 2007 12:58 PM:Excuse me, but if memory serves, the Clinton issue, his "crime" of lying to Congress, was a case of the Republican dominated Congress, having spent +/-$70 million dollars of taxpayer money, cornering him over an issue having NOTHING to do with his governence of the Country. With no justifiable crime to impeach him, they came up with a stained blue dress so they could embarass a sitting President and his family, and demonstrate how morally superior Republicans are. No one says the whole show put on by the so-called Christain-Family Values, Contract with America Republican Congress was a fraud. We are only to remember that Clinton lied. Turns my stomach.
John Wilson wrote on July 3, 2007 1:03 PM:As the great historian Toldstory
pointed out: "The collapse of a Republic and the destruction of civilization always follows
a government leadership that goes all silly
-- The American government at the turn of the century bring a case in point..."
---from A Tribute to Wilson, Harpers, 2207
leah wrote on July 3, 2007 1:24 PM:Jake,
Title VII is a civil code, so there's no "sentence" for you to check.
Also, sex and sexual harassment aren't the same thing. Lewinsky wasn't sexually harassed by Clinton, she had sex with him.
Your implied analogy doesn't work.
thersitz wrote on July 3, 2007 1:50 PM:Way to earn your money, Jake.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 2:13 PM:leah:
I know that Title VII is a CIVIL code -- it's still federal law and I wonder whether Lewinsky would say today that she was sexually harassed by Clinton or not -- as I said, I would have to check what the sentence is for any federal CRIME. You'll be the first to know, I promise.
thersitz:
I'm retired, but I do "earn" money off prudent investments. Are you suggesting I get paid to post here?
leah wrote on July 3, 2007 2:59 PM:Jake,
If you have any support for the insinuation that Lewinsky was "harassed" by Clinton, please link to it. Despite the best efforts of the Republican party, it is not yet illegal to have sex in the United States.
Title VII protects women (and others) from many things, including a hostile work environment, and a "quid pro quo" expectation of sex in return for a promotion. Tawdry though it was, the Lewinsky scandal was about a consensual relationship. I have never read a word to suggest that Lewinsky either missed out on a promotion, or found that her work environment was "hostile," because of her consensual affair with the president.
Your claim that Clinton's behavior was "against the law" isn't accurate.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 3, 2007 3:49 PM:Leah
Commendable effort, but primitive types like Jake have no understanding of what you're talking about. Their only understanding of sex is that it is something to be used as a weapon. The "pro-life" movement is nothing but a weapon for controlling the lives of women; the Lewinsky episode was a weapon for embarrassing a popular AND SUCCESSFUL political opponent.
As a nation, with respect to sex we have not advanced far from the witch-hunting mentality of colonial Salem.
heh wrote on July 3, 2007 4:24 PM:well, lets hope they impeach the guy in the WH and remove him before he can remove the stain from Libby's record and let him live forever that he's a convicted felon of the worst kind: traitor.
The GOP is toast with this decision, the thugs can never claim again that they're the rule of law party forever more. That is, unless they steal more elections.
Steve5117 wrote on July 3, 2007 5:16 PM:Jake:
I'm retired, but I do "earn" money off prudent investments...
It doesn't matter if you are retired or not and earning money from your investments, you are still an asshole, sir.
Long Memory wrote on July 3, 2007 5:49 PM:Here's a prediction, based on recent reporting: Scooter will get a book deal from, say, Rupert Murdoch's company, and his worries will be over. At least this book will be more interesting than the novel he wrote a while back.
MN progressive wrote on July 3, 2007 6:01 PM:Jake:
Since you brought up the Clinton Administration's scandal, what do you suppose Jeff Gannon/James Guckert 200+ visits to the West Wing were about? All times of the day and night--and missing Secret Service logs to boot. Monica's investigations were started like this.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 7:17 PM:Leah:
There's evidence (see Vernon Jordon) that Ms. Lewinsky was promised a job in return for sex -- after "My Life" came out, I think Monica was pretty furious and basically called Bill a liar -- if he lied about those details, how do we know he didn't lie that there was no sexual harrassment as well?
heh:
I thought Libby's convictions were perjury and obstruction of justice (not "treason")?
Steve5117:
I was unaware being an asshole was against the law. Are you suggesting I get paid to post here too?
MN progressive:
I have no idea -- too bad the Independent Counsel law's expired, huh?
leah wrote on July 3, 2007 8:22 PM:Jake,
Your sexual harassment theory regarding Monica still makes no sense. The legend is that Vernon Jordan reached out to Monica to get her a better job outside of the Whitehouse once Clinton wanted to break things off-- essentially, she was promised a better job to STOP having sex with Bill Clinton. Title VII doesn't provide a remedy in such a scenario (if anything, Monica would have been courting a hostile work environment suit herself). Most importantly, sexual harassment generally doesn't involve consensual relationships, and you must admit their relationship was consensual. Surely someone steeped in Lewinsky lore remembers the personal ads she purchased and the birthday ties-- do you think Monica had Stockholm syndrome?
Jake wrote on July 4, 2007 12:33 AM:That's the "legend," Leah, but Clinton also tried to obfuscate when he started harassing Monica as well.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 2:30 AM:But for Scooter, Judy Miller would have never gone to jail, but even 85 days is too long for the Scoot? Bush needs to stop looking into people's souls. It doesn't work!
Posted by: Dan Putnam
Date: July 3, 2007 9:47 AM
But for Judy Miller being entitled -- I doubt the law which prohibits the exposure of a covert agent includes the exemption, "Unless a professional journalist" -- Judy Miller would never have gone to jail.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 2:37 AM:Libby's family "suffered enough".
Sieligman's family? Tough shit.
It's interesting that only wealthy white Republican males have families that suffer for what happens to the wealthy white Republican male to whom they are related.
Agnew's familt "suffered" too.
The poor who are jailed don't have families who suffer as result.
Israel first!
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 2:48 AM:A 'tone' nullifying the decision of the presiding Republican Judge, Republican Judges who refused Irwin's appeal to stay out of jail while his case was being appealed, and casting doubt on the work of Republican appointed US Attorney. A 'tone' signifying that the rule of law does not apply to the Bush and Bushies.
And this is only the beginning. Bush will issue a pardon when his occupancy of the White House is terminated. I'm betting on it.
Posted by: Agathena
Date: July 3, 2007 10:59 AM
Fitgerald is _NOT_ a Republican. Nor is he Democrat or Independent. He is unaffiliated.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 2:56 AM:David Brooks' column in Tuesday's NY Times,("Ending the Farce") celebrates the infinite wisdom of Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence. Brooks' carefully constructed persona as a conservative-leaning moderate has been dropped in favor of playground-style name-calling and personal attacks on Joseph Wilson- both Wilson's name and physical appearance. Some examples: "a strutting little peacock who went by the unimaginative name of Joe Wilson." "an inveterate huckster who could be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six." "As Joe Wilson was an absurd man with a plain name, Scooter Libby was a plain man with an absurd name. And the odder thing was that Libby was the only normal person in the asylum." (When I read that line,I couldn't help thinking of Libby's novel, "The Apprentice," with its detailed descriptions of wierd sexual encounters with animals.)
David Brooks cannot deal with the fact that he was mistaken in his support for the Administration's falsehood-driven disaster which is Iraq; so he has reverted into a mud-slinging infant.
Posted by: Myrna
Date: July 3, 2007 11:29 AM
I can't read Brooks without becoming furious: his intolerabel smarm, and know-it-all lying is more than a sane person should be required to suffer, absent conviction by a jury of his peers for perjury and obstruction of justice.
What sort of journalist lies? What sort of journalism is it which allows such lying with impunity?
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 3:01 AM:Myrna:
When I read your post, I couldn't help thinking of Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and his novel with its detailed descriptions of wierd sexual encounters between a father and his son. Getting back on topic, is it right or wrong for people to contribute $5 million to support Libby?
Security Code: RIGHT
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 11:38 AM
It is wrong to lie, "Jake," especially while exhibiting a disregard for right and wrong. The reference to the Libby novel and its contents is true.
It is also wrong -- and hypocritical -- to smear a person on false grounds -- Webb -- while pretending to be opposed to smearing people.
Party before country is treason, "Jake". Why do you hate your country?
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 3:06 AM:Were you similarly upset about Clinton's pardons when his occupancy of the White House was terminated. I'm betting you weren't.
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 11:15 AM
1. Libby wsn't pardoned. His jail-time was commuted. They are not the same thing.
2. You were doubtless pissed at Clinton for pardoning (only in part -- like you give a damn for the facts) Marc Rich. But not that the person who lobbied for that pardon was "Scooter" Libby; after all, being a Republican absolves one of the rules of law, ethics, truth, and reason.
Why do you hate your country, "Jake"?
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 3:14 AM:P.S. sexual harrassment in the workplace was against federal law too ; )
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 11:57 AM
It wasn't sexual harrassment -- because Clinton, the potential victim thereof, didn't say it was. Lewinsky was, though, as everyone who knows the facts and doesn't lie about them, an admitted stalker of Clinton who boasted in advance to her girlfriend that she was going to Washington to "earn [her] kneepads".
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 3:18 AM:Unjustified pardons/commutations have consenquences. Clinton's pardon's of Marc Rich, etc. are remembered and are the one unmovable obstacle to his wife's receiving the nomination in '08.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Posted by: Billy Pilgrim
Date: July 3, 2007 12:01 PM
There was nothing unjustified in the Marc Rich pardon -- else we'd still be hearing about it based upon the pointless review of Clinton's pardons by the Republican-controlled Congress.
Which, of course, sets a precedent: Bushit's commutation of Libby's jail-time is subject to review and investigation.
As for Marc Rich: it was not a full pardon; he was absolved of the false criminal charges, but he was required to make different arrangements -- against him -- concerning the civil charges.
And let's not forget that the person who lobbied for the Marc Rich pardon was "Scooter" Libby.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 3:26 AM:Thank you for your astute remarks. Too bad you saw nothing wrong with the Clinton pardons. Perhaps you live in a moral vacuum like everyone else in the hovel you come from.
Posted by: Billy Pilgrim
Date: July 3, 2007 12:14 PM
Again: the Repoublican-controlled Congress reviewed all of Clinton's pardons _AND FOUND NOTHING WITH WHICH TO CONTINUE TO HOUND HIM_. If they found nothing, then there was no "there" there to find.
Now, if you have some complaint with one or more of Clinton's pardons, perhaps you should be specific: which ones, and based upon what alleged facts.
Otherwise, your generalization does nothing but cast unevidenced aspersions at Clinton.
None of which succeeds in achieving your goal: appearing to be objective.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 3:34 AM:Billy Pilgrim:
I'm not upset about Clinton's pardons -- so I'm sure some of you here were defending him back then too -- we'll see if Agathena responds.
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 11:57 AM
Billy Pilgrim:
You're welcome. Too bad Democrats saw nothing wrong with the Clinton pardons as well. I live in the same country as those Americans.
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 12:25 PM
Make up your mind: you're either upset over the Clinotn pardons, or you're not.
By contrast: the Republican-controlled Congress went over Clinton's pardons with a fine-toothed comb and didn't come up with anything about which to be upset.
So, those who want to be upset with those pardons -- in fact, or for the sake of appearances, don't know the facts, else they'd not be upset about them.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 3:44 AM:Dan:
Sexual harassment in the workplace is against federal law and specifically violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I will have to check what the sentencing calls for though.
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 12:29 PM
While you're at it, read the entire statute.
By contrast (I've read the statute):
In order for there to be a crime of "sexual harassment," one of the parties involved must make complaint of such. Based upon the facts, Lewinsky set out from CA to "earn [her] kneepads"; thus, had the crime of "sexual harassment" occurred, the complainant would have to have been Clinton, because Lewinsky, as the admitted stalker, was the perpetrator.
Doubtless those facts will have no impact upon your smearing Clinton based upon deliberate lying, and that based upon the lie that you're moral; and that based upon the lie that you're concerned with right and wrong.
Not-so-by-the-way: as the pardon power is absolute, pardons are unreviewable by any other body or party, including Congress. Which didn't stop the "We're against wrongdoing" Republican-controlled Congress wrongly reviewing the Clinton pardons anyway.
Now that they've set the precedent, however, it is right to review Bushit's commutation of Libby's jail-time, especially as Cheney was named as a participant in that crime (Clinton was not the perpetrator in any "sexual harassment" which potentially occurred; and no such crime was adjudicated concerning Clinton and or Lewinsky; but that doesn't stop you smearing him as if he committed such crime anyway).
And it probable Bushit was also involved in that crime, especially as he originally said anyone found to be involved in it would "no longer work for this administration" -- yet Cheney is still there.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 3:53 AM:"I know that Title VII is a CIVIL code -- it's still federal law and I wonder whether Lewinsky would say today that she was sexually harassed by Clinton or not . . . ."
Too late: her girlfriend testified to her saying she was going to Washington to "earn [her] kneepads". And Monica has admitted being that termed in the law as "stalker". Were there "sexual harassment," it was Clinotn who was stalked and harassed.
Your smear is intellectually dishomnest because cast covertly as innuendo. And being intellectually dishonest refutes your presenting as being concerned with morality, and right and wrong.
In short: you're a liar, and lying is -- as Libby learned -- in some circumstances illegal. Even when not illegal, it is unethical and immoral. Is, in a word, wrong.
Even if you think it "funny," or "only politics," to lie, you are still lying. And lying is still wrong.
"Posted by: Jake
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 4:06 AM:Date: July 3, 2007 2:13 PM"
"Leah:
"There's evidence (see Vernon Jordon) that Ms. Lewinsky was promised a job in return for sex"
Actually, there is no such evidence. Further: Vernon Jordan cannot be trusted, because he's a Democrat.
Correct?
". . . after "My Life" came out, I think Monica was pretty furious and basically called Bill a liar -- if he lied about those details, how do we know he didn't lie that there was no sexual harrassment as well?"
Let's speculate -- so long as it smears, eh? If Clinotn lied about A, then he must be lying about B. Or: if we couldjn't trust Clinton's word on A, then we wouldn't bew able to trust his word on B.
"I was unaware being an asshole was against the law."
Neither was the non-illegal consensual affair between two consenting heterosexual adults, one of whom was Clinton, against the law. And as Monica admitted she took the initiative, the victim of "sexual harassment" would have been Clinton.
"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 7:17 PM"
There are additional differences between Clinton and Libby cases:
1. Clinton allegedly lied -- he was ACQUITTED by a REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress -- about a private matter which had no effect on the state/gov't, and which harmed no one outside his family.
2. Libby was CONVICTED by a non-partisan jury of his peers; and many tens of thousands have been killed and permanently maimed as result of his crime.
For the record:
The CIA, in its referral of the case to the DOJ for investigation, and severally thereafter, and Fitzgerald, repeatedly asserted and documented that Plame was in fact a covert agent, thus the law prohibiting exposure of her identity directly applied. And the fact is that her identity was exposed, which exposure did in fact violate that law.
Were those not the facts, there wouldn't have been an investigation to begin with.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 4:14 AM:That's the "legend," Leah, but Clinton also tried to obfuscate when he started harassing Monica as well.
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 4, 2007 12:33 AM
1. "Harassment" is a legal term, as defined in the statute to which you refer, but which you clearly either haven't read, or are lying about.
2. By Lewinsky's own testimony, Clinton didn't harass her. Were there a party to that consensual relationship who had standing to complain of such harassment, it would have been Clinton -- that too the result of the facts to which Lewinsky testified.
There was no harassment by either, in view of the fact that the potential victim -- Clinton -- did not make complaint of that against perpetrator Lewinsky.
Lying is immmoral and wrong. And your continuing to do so shreds your pretense to be concerned with morality, and right and wrong. You have repeatedly shown yourself, here, to be a duplicitous hypocrite.
I'll bet you also claim to be a Christian, thus ignoring two Commandments which are required of such: Thou shalt not lie; and, Thou shalt not lie against others.
Meanwhile, unlike Clinton, Libbly was convicted of perjury, and worse.
SC = front. As in, your santimonious, morally-superior front fools no one, "Jake".
Jake wrote on July 4, 2007 11:39 AM:JNagarya:
Busy morning you've had here. For the record, I never said I was upset about the Marc Rich pardon -- I'm the one pointing out it is hypocritical to defend Clinton re: Rich but bash Bush re: Libby -- you're not "upset" about either since you agree the pardon power is absolute, right? Also, I don't know what "SC" means, but I am not lying" about anything I've posted above.
As for the impeachment of Clinton, the President of the United States lied before a federal judge, and then again in front of a grand jury, obstructing justice during Ken Starr's investigation as well. Libby wasn't charged with an underlying crime either. Clinton was never indicted or "acquited" for his crimes in federal court. He accepted a contempt citation and plea bargain instead. Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright cited for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully, assessing a $90,000 fine, and referring the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate (Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the Independent Counsel to end the investigation -- based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign). Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition, the Judge wrote:
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ."
I hope I've summarized that to your exacting standard. And, for someone making such precise distinctions above, you certainly know the difference between IMPEACHMENT and INDICTMENT, right?
As for Clinton and Lewinsky's "private matter which had no effect on the state/gov't", I do wonder whether she would say today that she was sexually harassed or not -- as Leah pointed out above the "Stockholm syndrome" could more aptly be described as the "West Wing syndrome" -- your theory that CLINTON was the victim is indeed laughable. Just because a girl talks / dresses provocatively, doesn't mean she's to blame for rape either. I would have to also disagree with your theory there was "no harm" from the affair and subsequent consequences (e.g. bin Laden and WTC attack).
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 2:50 PM:"JNagarya:
"Busy morning you've had here. For the record, I never said I was upset about the Marc Rich pardon . . . ."
Actually, as I substantiated by quoting you from both sides of your mouth, you did. I simply asked you to make up your two-faced mind.
". . . -- I'm the one pointing out it is hypocritical to defend Clinton re: Rich but bash Bush re: Libby . . . ."
There is nothing at all hypocritical about it, as they are apples and oranges as to fact patterns -- different in both alleged crimes, and "pardon". Rich was charged with drfrauding private citizens of money. Libby lied about an act which undermined national security, therefore was treason.
For one, a pardon and a commutation are not the same thing. You should accept that as fact, as Tony Snow himself afforims that fact.
For another, Rich wasn't given a full pardon; he was absolved of the false criminal charges -- lodged by US AG Guliani -- as shown to be such by Libby. You refuse to accept the fact that Libby is a liar, so you must accept that fact as being fact.
The other part of the pardon was an adjustment of the civil verdict against Rich -- against the interests of Rich.
Libby was convicted by a non-partisan jury of his peers by a non-partisan prosecutor with a Bushit-appointed Republican judge presiding. The appelate reivew consisted of two right-wing Republicans and one Democrat-appointed judge. The verdict was unanimous that Libby's appeal was without merit.
Note that Republican Judge Walton was subjected to death threats, as was his family, both by illegal crank calls and in writing -- in behalf of Libby. You've voiced no objection to that felonious interference in the justice system by Republicans/"conservatives"/Libby supporters. For obvious reason: it reveals everything about the nature of the "character" of the sort of persons who support a treasonous felon.
". . . -- you're not "upset" about either since you agree the pardon power is absolute, right?"
I'll make it easy for you: a pardon -- which is not what Libby was given -- and the person granting the pardon are distinguishable in law. If it were found that the person granting the pardon did so in order to obstruct justice, that person would be subject to criminal cprosecution -- impeachment and removal, at the least -- without affecting -- revoking -- the pardon.
"Also, I don't know what "SC" means, but I am not lying" about anything I've posted above."
"SC" at the end of a post is "Security Code". "SC" otherwise is Supreme Court.
Amnd -- yes -- you lie everytime you touch your keyobard -- as you do in this post.
"As for the impeachment of Clinton, the President of the United States lied before a federal judge, and then again in front of a grand jury, obstructing justice during Ken Starr's investigation as well."
He was charged -- impeached -- in the Republican-controlled House. Then he was tried on the charges by the Republican-controlled Senate. And he was _A-C-Q-U-I-T-T-E-D_ by the Republican-controlled Senate. That means, obviously, and as admitted by non-liars, that he did not commit the crimes with which charged. I.e., he did not perjure himself, or obstruct justice.
"Libby wasn't charged with an underlying crime either."
There isn't any need to charge for an underlying crime when perjury in itself is a crime. It is illegal to lie to a grand jury, period -- even when there isn't an underlying crime. To insist otherwise is to lie. There was no underlying crime with Clinton -- despite the continue lying on that point (the Lewinsky-Clinton affair was consensual and non-illegal); AND he was ACQUITTED of the charges alleging perjury and obstruction of justice. That means, twit, he didn't commit perjury, and did not obstruct justice.
"Clinton was never indicted or "acquited" for his crimes in federal court."
Irrelevant. He was charged -- and acquitted -- in the higher court that is Congress -- the higher court which establishes, and eliminates, all other courts except the SC.
"He accepted a contempt citation and plea bargain instead. Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright cited for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully, assessing a $90,000 fine, and referring the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate (Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the Independent Counsel to end the investigation -- based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign). Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition, the Judge wrote:
""Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . .""
Irrelevant, as the affair was not illegal; the Ken Starr prosecution was a fraud from the outset: he had originally represented Paula Jones -- then resigned from that case when appointed by Judge Sentelle to investigate Clinton. That was a clear violation of the Canons -- Starr had already had an interest in the case he first set out to pin to Clinton: Paula Jones. But that's an issue of ethics, which properly debarred Starr from handling that case in a falsely "independent" manner, which you couldn't care less about.
"I hope I've summarized that to your exacting standard. And, for someone making such precise distinctions above, you certainly know the difference between IMPEACHMENT and INDICTMENT, right?"
Impeachment IS indictment, as it occurs in the House upon investigation. The indictment is then tried in the Senate.
"As for Clinton and Lewinsky's "private matter which had no effect on the state/gov't", I do wonder whether she would say today that she was sexually harassed or not -- as Leah pointed out above the "Stockholm syndrome" could more aptly be described as the "West Wing syndrome" -- your theory that CLINTON was the victim is indeed laughable."
Based upon the facts, there was no sexual harassment -- neither party having made such a claim. Had there been -- based upon the facts -- the victim of it would have been Clinton, as Lewinsky said she was going to Washington to "earn [her] kneepads" and the identified target of that stalking -- which too has a legal definition which fits Lewinsky's conduct -- was Clinton.
Laws prohibiting sexual harassment and stalking are "gender neutral": they don't only protect females and constrain males.
"Just because a girl talks / dresses provocatively, doesn't mean she's to blame for rape either."
Never said otherwise, as it is irrelevant to the issue. Your effort to smear Clinton noted nonetheless.
"I would have to also disagree with your theory there was "no harm" from the affair and subsequent consequences (e.g. bin Laden and WTC attack)."
You'd be wrong, as bin Ladein didn't attack the WTC because of the Lewinsky affair. And as for the "distraction" from hs duties of office by the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress and its false allegations that Clinton was "wagging the dog" re. bin Laden, I'll take the word of REPUBLICAN Richard Clarke over a liar such as you 24/7.
"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 4, 2007 11:39 AM"
The SC held that a sitting president can be sued civilly, privately. A dumb decision; but it applies also to Bushit. I hope Joe Wilson adds Bushit as a co-defendant down the line when discovery shows that Bushit was part of the unfounded efforts to smear Wilson, and the illegal exposure of covert CIA agent Plame.
Your attitude is that of the lynch mob -- an element of "character" you share with Bushit. It dispenses with democratic due process of law -- hypocritically: Clinton, acquitted, is presumed guilty; Libby, convicted, is presumed innocent.
Clinton was in office one month when the first WTC bombing occurred. It was his fault. Bush was in office 8 months when the second occurred, on 9/11 -- that being Clinton's fault too, of course.
Meanwhile, the relevant issue in this and related threads is Libby, and Bushit's interference in the justice system. Clinton is irrelevant -- which is why you drag him in in effort to avoid the issue. You are transparently hostile to morality while pretending so strenuously to be concerned with right and wrong. You fool no one; but you'll settle for subverting discussion with irrelevancies.
Jake wrote on July 4, 2007 4:22 PM:The ONLY reason I brought up Clinton's pardon of Rich was because Agathena complained that "Bush will issue a pardon [to Libby] when his occupancy of the White House is terminated". But, since you seem to think an "indictment" in the U.S. House of Representatives (Clinton's impeachment) and "acquital" (failure to achieve the super-majority required to remove him from office) by the Senate somehow precluded an indictment before a grand jury, I won't bother anymore. I obviously can't explain it to you. Too bad Clinton didn't have your brilliant legal advice before HE agreed to a plea bargain on those very charges.
domga wrote on July 5, 2007 7:10 AM:Let me get this straight... repubs believe two wrongs make it right... thus clinton/rich cancels bush/libby. My dear departed mother believed two wrongs equaled two wrongs... then again she wasn't rich and born with a silver spoon in her mouth... just had some common sense that could spot a childish justification in a nano seond.
domga wrote on July 5, 2007 7:11 AM:Let me get this straight... repubs believe two wrongs make it right... thus clinton/rich cancels bush/libby. My dear departed mother believed two wrongs equaled two wrongs... then again she wasn't rich and born with a silver spoon in her mouth... just had some common sense that could spot a childish justification in a nano seond.
domga wrote on July 5, 2007 7:14 AM:Let me get this straight... repubs believe two wrongs make it right... thus clinton/rich cancels bush/libby. My dear departed mother believed two wrongs equaled two wrongs... then again she wasn't rich and born with a silver spoon in her mouth... just had some common sense that could spot a childish justification in a nano seond.
JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 7:39 AM:"The ONLY reason I brought up Clinton's pardon of Rich was because Agathena complained that "Bush will issue a pardon [to Libby] when his occupancy of the White House is terminated"."
Go back and re-read your two contradictory statements -- that you weren't "upset" about the Clinton pardons (you've since made every possible lie-based stink about them from behind that lie), and the second in which you give away your agreement with the "upset" about those pardons.
Those "upsets" begin bogus, based upon wingnut lying about them: again: though the pardon power is unreviewable, the "We never do wrong, we only oppose doing wrong" REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress nonethelless made a huge public stnk about the Clinton pardons, and made a big public show of reviewing those pardons with a fine-tooth comb -- the only purpose of which to attack and smear Clinton.
In the end, they had to admit they found nothing whatever irregular about the pardons, including the unfounded allegation that Rich's wife "bought" his pardon by donating monies to the Clinton library -- a smear that turned out to be nothing more than yet another lie by the "We never do wrong" REPUBLICANS.
Again and again the facts were ignored -- as they are again: an administration receives thousands of petitions for pardons every year. The president hasn't the time to read and evaluate them, therefore there is a process, with guidelines, within the DOJ, for review of those petitions. Those relative few which survive that review are then presented to the president for his approval. As concerns the Rich pardon, Clinotn wasn't disposed to pardon him; but he was prevailed upon to do so not only by Libby, but also by three of the individuals in the DOJ who reviewed that petition. In short: Clinton had to be persuaded to grant that pardon by those who reviewed the petition; and that pardon was not total.
""But, since you seem to think an "indictment" in the U.S. House of Representatives (Clinton's impeachment)"
What does the House do when it considers impeachent? In what form are its allegations -- allegations, because presumption of innocence is the bedrock of democratic due process -- presented? As Articles of Impeachment. But the House in investigating and devoloping and drawing up such Articles is acting in the cpacity of a grand jury. Grand juries hand down (or up, depending on one's perspective) indictments.
The Articles of Impeachment, the indictment/s, are then brought to the Senate where, if they are accepted, trial on the indictment/s is held.
Presumption of innocence doesn't disappear simply because a person is put on trial. Or simply because he is a Democrat. Clinton was impeached by a partisan REPUBLICAN-controlled House on bogus grounds, and Clinton -- still presumed innocent -- was ACQUITTED of those bogus charges by a partisan/anmti-Democrat REPUBLICAN controlled Senate. Therefore, the presumption of innocence prevails without damage or diminution. Your irrational hatred is not justice, and not a legitimate verdict. In fact, it is extra-judicial, unconstitutional, illegal.
It would be hard to find an instance of a cleaner bill of health than that of passing through that hyper-partisan anti-Democratic process and being _ACQUITTED_, despite the most fervently and irrationally hateful and anti-Christian hopes of lying smear-mongers such as you. To you there is no rule of law; it ois all and only about "politics". Your only invocation of law is as a cudgel against those you hate for no reason other than your addiction to the false moral superiority of being addicted to your hate of all and everone you are instructed to hate by your party. Otherwise, the only concern you have with law is when it is to your advantage, to others' disadvantage, or a mix of the two.
You fool no one but yourself in believing you fool others than yourself. You're as transparent in your unsavory motives as unpolluted air.
". . . and "acquital" (failure to achieve the super-majority required to remove him from office) . . . ."
Presumption of innocence prevailed in the eyes of the hyper-partisan anti-Democratic REPUBLICAN-controlled Senate/judge-and-jury. They didn't "fail" to remove him from office; rather, they affirmed Clinton's innocence, which was requisitely presumed from the outset, and throughout the process.
". . . . by the Senate somehow precluded an indictment before a grand jury, I won't bother anymore."
Did that happen? no. Why do you inject it? Only to smear, smear, and smear again. Wake up, fool: the first victim of your hatred is _YOU_.
"I obviously can't explain it to you. Too bad Clinton didn't have your brilliant legal advice before HE agreed to a plea bargain on those very charges."
I happen to have an actual education in actual law. And you yet again conflate a separate case improperly oinvolving Ken Starr, with the impeachment, which occurred in Congress, in effort to eliminate the distinctions, with the goal, yet again, of smear, smear, smear.
Get it through your head: if lying is immoral and wrong for others than you, it is also immoral and wrong for you. You demolish your fake moral concern, outrage, and superiority, by dint o the fact that your fake moral conern, etc., is a lie -- immoral and wrong.
All you are is a hateful hypocrite who will tell any lie, based upon innumerable lies, against anyone who is not a Republcan; against anyone who will not put the Republican party above and before Constitution and rule of law. Over and before they very survival of your country as that it was and is intended to be: "A system of laws, and not of men" -- John Adams.
Your dirty dodge is to reduce everything to "politics," as is typical of the common criminal's means by which to falsely claim he is exempt from the rule of law: "Everyone's against me, and the minority to which I belong; I'm a victim of injustice, even though we are actually the majority therefore deserve to govern and have all the laws our way."
There is nothing either new or persuasive in your sociopathic efforts to advance hateful, uncivil bullying against the civil majority, the rule of law, and the survival of your own country. If you are "retired," as you claim (which claim I only entertain), then you doubtless remember your mother taught you a set of rules called "manners". There are no legitimate excuses for your rejection of manners in the name of a fake, mannerless moral superiority, especially in the realm of morality and ethics.
To call you a weasel would insult the weasel. To call you a hate-filled failure would be to state the obvious: you've hitched your wagon to the vilest of anti-Americanism; an anti-Americanism which will shock and haunt you when you finally realize that it requires that you vote against your own interests, and endeavor to advance the efforts of your enemies.
Or do you actually believe that were you convicted for the exact same crimes as Libby that you, simply because a "loyal Republican" who works to advance the party-before-country Repulican agenda, would get your sentence commuted by Bushit? Not even Rove's long-time personal friend Abramoff has got commutation or pardon.
Face it: your party requires that you cut your own throat; but requires that you buy the knife with your own money with which to do that.
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 12:02 PM:"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 4, 2007 4:22 PM"
Look, JNagarya, I already said I obviously cannot explain it to you any better than I have tried. For the record, however, I never gave away any "agreement with the 'upset' about those pardons." I am also not a Republican, but a registered Independent (like Senator Lieberman). As for throat-cutting, do you also think O.J. was found "innocent" simply because he was not convicted by a "non-partisan" downtown L.A. jury? As I understand it, a jury verdict of "not guilty" is legally different that a court determination of "innocence." YMMV
Jake wrote on July 8, 2007 1:56 AM:JNagarya:
Do you think O.J. was found "innocent" simply because he was not convicted by a "non-partisan" downtown L.A. jury?