…to hear that the Obama transition team has cleared itself of any impropriety:
Greg Craig, the incoming White House Counsel, conducted his inquiry by taking questions to each transition staff member’s lawyer. The lawyers then went to the staff members and collected the answers. The lawyers then gave the answers to Craig.
In some cases — team Obama won’t say how many — Craig would go back to either the staff member’s attorney or the staff member directly for clarification. But it appears Craig’s direct questioning of staff was very limited.
Additionally, there was no independent effort to verify any of the information provided by the staff member or the staff member’s attorney. If, for example, a staff member’s attorney said there was no e-mail or text messaging with Blagojevich or his staff, Craig took that at face value. No one knows if there was any e-mailing or texting, by the way.
Also, the lawyers’ own words mattered to Craig. He told reporters on Tuesday’s conference call that Valerie Jarrett described Blagojevich’s suggestion he might be appointed secretary of health and human services as “ridiculous” when that subject was broached by the Illinois head of the Service Employees International Union.
How does Craig know Jarrett said the word “ridiculous”? He knows that because that’s what Jarrett’s lawyer told him. Jarrett didn’t say it to Craig. Her attorney did.
This reminds me of when Bill Clinton was fending off Juanita Broaddrick’s accusations of rape. He never denied it, but directed people to his attorney, who claimed that it never happened. Even though he had no first-hand knowledge of it. And of course, the press accepted it as a denial.
This reminds me of when Bill Clinton was fending off Juanita Broaddrick’s accusations of rape. He never denied it
And investigators were just a bunch of Keystone Cops who put more faith in what she said under oath than in what she said on television.
Yes, what she said under oath. And under duress. It’s not like the Clintons don’t have a well-documented history of intimidating witnesses…
It reminds me of Otto Skorzeny: when accused of complicity in the Malmedy massacre his defense was that he had circulated a questionnaire among his officers and noncoms, and they had all replied that they had not been involved in war crimes… and that was good enough for him.
Yes, what she said under oath. And under duress.
Yes, she had this great sense of intimidation she was under oath. But on television she felt safe enough.
The difference is not in the medium, but in the time frame.
See, this is what I mean when I said that they were Keystone Cops. After Broaddrick spilled the beans on television, they could have put her back under oath. But they didn’t think of that. They were spending all of their time at the doughnut shop or something.
And who is it that you would propose should have put her under oath, and in what venue and purpose?
And who is it that you would propose should have put her under oath, and in what venue and purpose?
It could have been useful for witness intimidation charges, or for the impeachment hearings, or for some other criminal charges or any of several kinds of lawsuit. Among other directions to pursue, Broaddrick said that she was being stalked, and that someone had broken into her house.
It could have been useful for witness intimidation charges, or for the impeachment hearings, or for some other criminal charges or any of several kinds of lawsuit.
The statute of limitations was probably long past for any of those things. And the notion that Juanita Broaddrick would have been allowed to provide testimony as part of that joke of an impeachment trial in the Senate is even more ludicrous than most of the things you post.
Testimony in the Clinton impeachment debate?
Because despite what it might be called in the Constitution, it was a Senate debate, not a trial.
The joke is that anyone to this day retains any respect for that upper chamber of Congress. There are no Democrats or Republicans there — all 100 are members of the Senate Party.
The statute of limitations was probably long past for any of those things.
Certainly not. She said that she was stalked and burgled during the impeachment probe.
And the notion that Juanita Broaddrick would have been allowed to provide testimony as part of that joke of an impeachment trial in the Senate is even more ludicrous than most of the things you post.
No, I don’t mean direct Congressional testimony. Kenneth Starr took supporting testimony from a lot of people, and he could if it were useful take testimony under oath.
It just stands to reason that it could have been useful in many ways for Broaddrick to testify under oath again, once she had said on television that she had lied under oath the first time. Either she was intimidated into giving false testimony or she wasn’t. If she had been intimidated, then it would have been useful for criminal charges of some kind against Clinton. And if she hadn’t, she was admitting to wrongdoing on national television.
It just stands to reason that it could have been useful in many ways for Broaddrick to testify under oath again, once she had said on television that she had lied under oath the first time.
Useful to whom?
Not that I disagree with your characterization of Starr et al as Keystone Cops.
Useful to whom?
It would have been useful to set the record straight under oath, to Broaddrick herself for her reputation, and to the pursuit of justice against her alleged tormentor. Because, as it stands, she just left it at that she spoke against herself.
You continue to dodge the question (as is often the case).
Glad you’re relieved, Rand. Now get back to important topics.