Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Once you call in the Inquisition, somebody has to get burned at the stake. Who would expect otherwise?

My solution: remove personal immunity from special prosecutors. So, go ahead and prosecute anyone you want -- but be very sure you've got a good case, because if they are acquitted they can sue you personally for whatever it cost them to defend themselves.

Actually, you wouldn't even have to go that far. Just have the government pay all the legal bills, plus damages, lost wages, interest, et cetera for anyone the special prosecutor fails to convict, if some jury somewhere agrees the prosecution was unreasonable. That would make witch-hunt prosecutions no longer cost-free to those making the decisions about them.

As it is now, if Fitzgerald fail to get a conviction, his career may get no boost, but it won't suffer, either. And it will still be better off than if he'd never got an indictment. That's the problem. For him there's always an upside to indicting someone, and no downside, no matter how unjustified the charge may be. There needs to be some serious personal downside to bringing a worthless case to trial to restore balance.

Posted by Carl Pham at February 22, 2007 06:01 PM

Go ahead simberg, repeat the lies often enough, maybe
someone will believe you.

The CIA certified to Justice that a significant leak of
classified material had occurred.

That libby was not the leak to Novak does not mean that he
was not leaking material, or do you think he should be
disclosing classified material to Miller?

Posted by anonymous at February 22, 2007 06:37 PM

Why only the people who he fails to convict? If he gets a conviction, that hurts more, doesn't it?

Posted by at February 22, 2007 07:50 PM

Libby and MOnica are just the opposite sides of the same coin.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 22, 2007 08:14 PM

Libby and MOnica are just the opposite sides of the same coin.

Yeah, sort of -- except Libby is claiming he can't remember whether, in the middle of organizing the Vice-President's staff at the beginning of a war, he had this conversation about the precise status of a low-level CIA staffer before that conversation, whereas Bill Clinton claimed that when he made a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit that he'd not had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, he didn't think having the First Cock sucked by the girl and spooging on her dress counted.

One is arguing he forgot a trivial fact during a stressful storm of major events. The other is arguing that he didn't lie in a sworn deposition because he was actually using his own unique version of the English language.

Seems a little different to me, but maybe I'm just picky.

Posted by Carl Pham at February 23, 2007 01:03 AM

Seems a little different to me, but maybe I'm just picky.

Posted by Carl Pham at February 23, 2007 01:03 AM..

I dont think Carl that you are picky, you are just probably well horrible gasp...partisan.

There is no real difference between Libby and the MOnica affair except whose ox is being gored...and the fact that in the goring the folks have switched sides.

I'll give you that Clinton was playing "loose and fast" with words, or riding on the precise definition of them, but in the end Libby is doing the same thing, he is playing loose and fast with his memory which is in the end no explanation for lying to a federal grand jury.

In these two cases I find each side has a table of shame. Starr and the GOP NEVER NOT IN A MILLION YEARS should have gone after Mr. Clinton to the extent that they did, putting the country through what they did (maybe even having some issues with Al Queda in retrospect) for such a trivial affair.

IF (and this is an important IF) we are going to start talking "being precise with words" then if Mr. Clinton is quilty of that, so is THIS administration with its complete and utter nonesense on WMD and IRaq. If anything this administration was worse over the "precise meaning of terms" that it used in swaying public policy then Mr. Clinton was about his precise definition of terms in private sex.

This administration might have never lied in a sworn statement but they did "Clinton" the facts in "PUBLIC CONVERSATIONS" with the american people. About War.

There is no doubt in my mind that having been "outted" in a substantive misstatement on Uranium from "Afica" Mr. Cheney and his happy bunch of "stretchers" then went after Mr. Wilson. Mr. Cheney during his time at DoD was noted for this. Cross Dickles in a substantive disagreement and your career was done.

I dont care how you spin the Africa story its a misstatement of events.

Which do you think is worse. Cheney and his Saddam/Africa connection, or the Alumium tubes which had nothing to do with nuclear prodution (and a blind man could have seen that), or "we know where the WMD is blah blah blah" ...

Or Clinton's statement on Monica?

I'm picky. Both were "precise language" both were attempts to decieve. One has sent us down a very dark road which it is going to take a modern miracle to recover from.

When I read Libby's testimony...I thought to myself "Yeah I believe that about as much as I believe that there was 'yellow cake in Africa" or whatever the stupid line was.

They are both different sides of the same coin.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 06:36 AM

Posted by Carl Pham at February 23, 2007 01:03 AM..

I should add one more thing.

I am as a rule uncomfortable with the saying that "Administrations lie".

OK doubtless Mark et al will role up some statements from the space policy board (grin) but in the end the long reach of history is that Administrations from Jefferson (probably earlier) to Bush the younger have "exaggerated" things to get their way in foreign policy.

There has been exactly one war (not counting our three internal ones) that we had forced on us...and that is WWII. Every other one we invited ourselves to mostly on very "dubious" circumstances... because it was in the interest of national security.

What makes those "dubious circumstances" (XYZ telegram, the Mexican Incursion, etc etc) "OK" is that the event usually is managed competently. Yeah Wilson (Bush's soul mate) had no idear what he was getting us into in WWI, but once he found out, well it was fought quite competently and it evolved quite quickly.

These guys were so intoxicated with "spinning" the American people that they more or less spun themselves. At best the years since we went boots on the ground in Iraq have been wasted. At worse we might have actually regressed some. We are finally getting down to fighting this thing how it needs to be fought...but that is only after years of "untidy", "dead enders" blah blah statements as "precise" as Mr. Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky.

They have lost the political battle to turd named John Murtha and it has put the country in trouble. We have to win in Iraq because losing is catastrophic...

but to wrap Libby in some holy grail and say "heck he is the victim of the inquisition"...is a stretch. I didnt hear all the evidence and our justice system is a wonderful thing, it "acquited OJ" and based on the evidence presented, even though I am sure he did it, I think he (OJ) should have been acquited.

They may well acquit Libby. If I was on the jury based on just what I have heard.

I'd bring the gasoline for the stake!

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 06:56 AM

There is no real difference between Libby and the MOnica affair except whose ox is being gored

Nonsense. There are huge differences, as Carl pointed out. First, we don't know for sure that Libby did lie. Certainly Fitzgerald's case is weak on that score. But even if he did, it's unclear why he did, since he did nothing illegal.

In the case of Clinton we know he lied (and intimidated witnesses, and bribed them), and we know that he did so in order to prevent a young woman who he had abused from gaining justice under a law that he signed with his own pen, but didn't seem to think should apply to him. And he did this as the person ultimately responsible for seeing that the law was properly executed.

No, it's not just about "whose ox is being gored."

There is no doubt in my mind that having been "outted" in a substantive misstatement on Uranium from "Afica" Mr. Cheney and his happy bunch of "stretchers" then went after Mr. Wilson.

If by "went after," you mean point out that he was totally full of sh1t, then yes, I suppose so. Were they just supposed to sit by and say nothing when he very publicly lied about his trip and its results?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 07:10 AM

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 07:10 AM..

Rand. the good news is that we agree on space policy and other things more then we disagree..

are you talking about Paula Jones?

This was a civil case (not a criminal one) which was a completly "she said/he said" as to any type of "abuse".

That in contrast to "wmd everywhere we sort of knew where it was but gans it is gone"...

When you go to a federal (or any) grand jury and you dont recall, that is precisly what you say...you dont spin a tale which you have no notes or anything else to substantiate.

I dont have a clue what the jury is going to do, but had any law enforcement officer done what Libby is alleged to have done at the grand jury, the badge would be gone.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 07:27 AM

This was a civil case (not a criminal one) which was a completly "she said/he said" as to any type of "abuse".

It is just as much a felony to commit perjury, intimidate witnesses, and bribe witnesses in a civil case as in a criminal one. All that Libby did (if he did) was lie to a grand jury. The case that he did is exceedingly weak, since it's completely he said/they said, and they seem to have inconsistent memories as well. And once again, Libby isn't responsible for seeing that the law is upheld. Clinton was.

If this is "partisan," explain the fact that I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 07:43 AM

Did Libby lie or was he simply confused about what happend when?

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 23, 2007 08:29 AM

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 07:43 AM..

Libby's case is not a "he said/she said"...it is a "he said to the Federal Grand jury" something that cannot be corroborated by the people who he puts in as "actors" in his explanation.

Libby has offered an explanation for events that at best have "thin" supportive statements.

In Clinton's case with Lewisnky (and again I think that they are two sides of the same coin) it was Clinton and Lewinsky alone engaged...(grin)...

Yes "lying is lying" particularly under oath, but in every jurisdiction in the country in every divorce case or other civil intimacy case that turns ugly there are "competing versions of truth" that routinly are offered, and I am not aware of one that has proceeded to perjury charges.

In Libby's case he spoke to a Federal Grand Jury in a matter that The Republic was involved in. I have read his testimony, he is given a lot of chances to "back down" by the jurors themselves. He missed every one of them. You can tell it got the jurors angry as he went on.

My view is that actors of this administration have gotten so use to "spinning" events that they dont have much of a clue as to when they drop off the spin and onto down right falsehood.

The irony of course in all of this is that "they got their war"..Wilson's claims were ineffective at convincing even toady Democrats to stand against it...all this administration or actors of it (I dont think Bush was in on any of this) did was stir up a hornets nest by trying to discredit Wilson.

Lying is LYing but in the end of it I get a little more perturbed about people "mistating" or "spinning" events to start a major foriegn policy "adventure" then I do some actors in a consensual sex drama spinning about how it went.

If you have read my oped on Nowak, it was not the "intermarriage" play that upsets one...the astronauts do that frequently as do a lot of Americans (and that is a personal choice although one could still say that it violated an officers commission) ...it is well trying to attack someone. We have moved to an entirely new level there.

I think both Lewinsky and Libby have been overheated...but for pete's sakes LEwinsky wasnt connected with a dramatic change in the foreign policy course of the nation.

In both cases Lewinsky and Libby the actors should ahve just told the truth and moved on...it would have been the end of it. AS I say they got their war.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 08:40 AM

You continue to ignore the key points of what I already wrote. If you're not going to address them, and you're going to continue to throw in red herrings about "how they got their war," don't bother wasting any more of my bandwidth and disk space, Robert.

In the case of Clinton we know he lied (and intimidated witnesses, and bribed them), and we know that he did so in order to prevent a young woman who he had abused from gaining justice under a law that he signed with his own pen, but didn't seem to think should apply to him. And he did this as the person ultimately responsible for seeing that the law was properly executed.

Apples and eggs.

There is reasonable doubt about whether or not Libby was deliberately lying, or confused. He's unlikely to be convicted.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 08:52 AM

If this is "partisan,"

It could hardly be more partisan.

explain the fact that I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat.

The only explanation needed is that denial of partisanship is itself partisan. You already said that you sometimes vote Republican, but you'll never vote for a Democrat.

Posted by at February 23, 2007 09:22 AM

It could hardly be more partisan.

Bull.

The only explanation needed is that denial of partisanship is itself partisan.

So, if I admit I'm partisan, I'm partisan. If I deny I'm partisan, I'm partisan. Heads you win, tails I lose.

You expect anyone to take that kind of "logic" seriously? It's so stupid, that I can see why you post it anonymously.

If by "sometimes" you mean once or twice in my life, yes. I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat. Sorry.

If Bill Clinton had been a Republican, I'd have thought exactly the same thing. (And of course, if he'd been a Republican, he'd probably have had the decency to resign, and if not, he'd have been removed from office by a Republican Senate.)

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 09:32 AM

So, if I admit I'm partisan, I'm partisan. If I deny I'm partisan, I'm partisan. Heads you win, tails I lose.

Non-partisanship is a lot like honesty. If the question is whether or not you are honest, it's not enough for you to say "Yes, I'm honest!" It might mean something if other people say that you are honest. Same thing here. You may not be partisan if enough other people agree that you're not.

And yes, people who spend too much protesting that they are honest are typically dishonest.

I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat.

It doesn't even really matter, because either way you have CCD --- Clinton Condemnation Disease. You have it worse than most Republicans, whether or not you're one of them.

Posted by at February 23, 2007 09:52 AM

Clinton Condemnation Disease?

No, I have this unfortunate habit of condemning corrupt politicians in general.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 10:00 AM

condemning corrupt politicians in general

That's right, corrupt, loathsome, or stupid politicians such as Clinton, Carter, Gore, and Kerry. You haven't said much lately about Mondale or Dukakis, but I don't really have to ask. They're certainly not wise, upstanding public servants like Scooter Libby.

But hey, you're not partisan, you said so yourself.

Posted by at February 23, 2007 10:09 AM

You haven't said much lately about Mondale or Dukakis,

What is it I'm supposed to say about them? I certainly have no reason to think them corrupt. Or Gore or Kerry, for that matter. They have other flaws, but not that. Clinton, however, was a criminal, and that's not a partisan judgement--it's an observable fact. As I said, my opinion would be exactly the same if he were a Republican. I don't know what mental defect causes you to think otherwise.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 10:26 AM

Did Libby lie or was he simply confused about what happend when?

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 23, 2007 08:29 AM..

If he was confused then he got horrible legal advice or gave himself bad legal counsel going to the grand jury.

The answer at the GJ if you are confused is "I dont recall" or "My memory isnt clear on that point" or "I have no recollection that I can swear to" or something like that.

Libby did none of those things, even when several grand jurors gave him the oppurtunity to back down from his statements.

perjury traps are a fiction of the Washington Press and talking heads. To "perjure" yourself to get a grand jury to believe that you are doing that the Prosecutor has to "show" convincing proof (in the federal system it is almost absolute proof) that the story that is being told could not be valid and that the person telling it "knows" it could not be valid.

A non contemptable defense to things you are confused on is all the statements I quoted above.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 11:56 AM

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 08:52 AM

Rand.

I agree that Clinton lied as a function of his relationship to Lewinsky. I dont so much agree on the "threatening witness" part. Starr did as much threatening as anyone I saw (who are you thinking about in this, perhaps I have missed something).

I dont think that the "lie" rose to the level of perjury. It certianly did not rise to impeachment.

I dont know what the odds are of LIbby being convicted. From what I have heard I would vote to convict. But I am biased and I have not heard all the evidence.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 11:59 AM

I dont so much agree on the "threatening witness" part. Starr did as much threatening as anyone I saw (who are you thinking about in this, perhaps I have missed something).

Listen to the Linda Tripp tapes, in which she and her family were threatened if she didn't perjure herself along with Clinton and Lewinsky. Not to mention his calling his secretary into the White House on a Sunday morning to make sure that she got her story straight (i.e., suborned perjury). Or the job that he had Richardson try to get Lewinsky at the UN, or the job that he had Vernon Jordan try to get her at Revlon, to keep her quiet.

There was much more going on there than simply "lying about sex." I have to think you weren't really paying attention.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 12:09 PM

Rand, it does seem as if Oler and Anon paid little attention whatsoever to the facts of the Clinton/Lewinsky case, or of the Wilson/Plame affair following the initial, mostly false, left-wing talking points.

Posted by John Irving at February 23, 2007 12:53 PM

...it does seem as if Oler and Anon paid little attention whatsoever to the facts of the Clinton/Lewinsky case, or of the Wilson/Plame affair following the initial, mostly false, left-wing talking points.

Indeed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 12:57 PM

Oler and Anon paid little attention whatsoever to the facts of the Clinton/Lewinsky case

Not just anyone here, but also the judge in the Paula Jones case, and special prosecutor Kenneth Starr and his successor Robert Ray. Even though Starr said many times that the Clintons are criminals, he never filed criminal charges in court. Meanwhile Ray, who continued the investigation into the Bush Administration, threw up his hands for supposed lack of evidence. The judge (a Republican) did cite Clinton for lying, but she called it civil contempt, not criminal perjury. Judge Wright also ruled that Jones' case had no merit.

Even though it's just plain fact that Bill Clinton is a criminal, the facts just blew away under a hard wind of judicial bias. Judicial bias, media bias, Wikipedia bias, it's a world full of bias.

Posted by at February 23, 2007 01:26 PM

Meanwhile Ray, who continued the investigation into the Bush Administration, threw up his hands for supposed lack of evidence.

No, he did nothing of the kind. His report abounded with evidence. He threw up his hands at the prospects of getting a conviction, given that any jury would be likely to have at least one Clinton sycophant on it, and be hung, just as Susan MacDougal's jury was. So he used his prosecutorial discretion, and didn't bother to bring charges. But there was no lack of evidence.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 01:33 PM

He threw up his hands at the prospects of getting a conviction, given that any jury would be likely to have at least one Clinton sycophant on it, and be hung

Fine, I stand corrected. Ray had tons of evidence that Clinton is a criminal, but he didn't expect that he could cleanse the jury of bias. Ray himself is a good man, it's juries that are the problem. Even if you make to 11 out of 12, there may still be that liberal malcontent who ruins it all.

There is just so much damn bias in the world, with criminal juries being a particular weak spot.

Posted by at February 23, 2007 01:42 PM

Anonymous, you obviously didn't read Ray's report. Sorry to pop your little bubble, but it did not exonerate the Clintons. (Neither, for that matter, despite much leftist bloviating to the contrary, did the Pillsbury-Madison report.)

Based on the evidence available on the public record, I believe that Bill (and Hillary) Clinton have committed numerous criminal acts. That they haven't been charged or convicted of them is irrelevant to that belief. It only means that they will suffer no legal consequences for them.

Or did you suddenly believe that OJ didn't kill his wife when he was acquitted?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 01:47 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 12:09 PM..
Rand.

I have listened to the LInda Tripp tapes, I watched "whats her name" (sorry cant recall it) from Arkansas the realator who did the "he raped me"...

I find little convincing about the Linda Tripp tapes or Linda Tripp. Back in the old days of federal law enforcement she is the kind of witness who you just cringed at...she was not believable she had so much baggage.

I might regret as a personal failing, but I dont care that Clinton had sex with someone who was not his wife in the White House...nor really the Oval Office, he is not the first one nor the last I bet to give it a whirl since the West Wing opened in TR's time. Had I been serving in the White House I would have tried to have found Lewinsky a job anywhere to protect The President from himself. This is what you do when you serve The President in his administration. It wasnt against the law to do that, it is not the first government "favor" job and it wont be the last.

ALL this pails in comparison to the Nowak affair much less to what this administration has done.

There is a sense of proportion lacking in these charges...particularly when it is compared to what this administration.

This administration has "misstated", "overstated", whatever one wants to use, the "Lie" word might even come up...EVERY FRAKEN THING about Iraq and us going and now us staying there. THESE ARE MATTERS OF STATE.

There is no other way to spin the ofiscations, misstatements, downright exaggerations about Iraq. We didnt know where the WMD was as Rummy said, we didnt really have hard evidence, we had lies from Iraqis that should have been udnerstood as lies.

Honestly the ONLY two things that in my view have stopped it from being an impeachable offense is that The Congress went along with the "statements" and Bush was reelected in 04 with the people knowing what he had done.

There is NOTHING that this administration has gotten "right" about Iraq...it is not the wartime fog of battle, thats excusable..these are things that they should have known people were telling them that "this or that" was wrong...

That speech Powell gave at the UN was so far above any "misstatements" that Clinton gave in his deposition it is amazing that Colin can still shave.

The sad thing for me is that I dont think Bush was in on this...I just think that he was mislead by people like Cheney and LIbby and Donnie and Condi and Georgie and all those people who have been spinning since 9/11 so hard they dont know the truth anymore.

There are misstatements, "That dress looks good on you" that you say to your female spouse...and then there are misstatements of state.

Cheney has made so many of those I am suprised his lips have not turned to fire.

We have to win in Iraq. We never should have gone, or we never should have gone like we did.

Those are "misstatements" that matter.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 01:47 PM

Robert, briefly, if you don't think that Linda Tripp was being intimidated in those tapes, then you didn't listen to them. Her credibility (to you--it's worth noting that she was the only person in the entire affair who has never been shown to lie) as a witness is irrelevant--the tapes are sufficient.

Pease spare me the usual Clinton-supporters' talking points about how you don't care who Bill Clinton sleeps with (irrelevant) and Bush bashing. I see that you are not going to address what I wrote. Why am I not surprised?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 01:51 PM

Anonymous, you obviously didn't read Ray's report.

I already told you, I stand corrected, Robert Ray is a good man.

I believe that Bill (and Hillary) Clinton have committed numerous criminal acts.

It's not just your belief, it's an observable fact!

Or did you suddenly believe that OJ didn't kill his wife when he was acquitted?

Certainly not. It just shows you what kind of juries we're up against these days. The prudent prosecutor knows to hold his fire.

Posted by at February 23, 2007 02:04 PM

Rand.

I think that I am pretty fair to both Clinton and Bush.

Linda Tripp was knee deep in the entire "episode" in no small measure trying to "take down" a President...you dont play those games for free, particularly when you are at the same time "serving" the President. She was trying to take down a President over a consensual sexual affair between two adults.

And then to spin this all up into Paula Jones and the ex DElta Stew, and the lady in Hot rock...I've heard the tapes, she would never be a witness in any criminal affair because she was "knee deep" in it. That she didnt lie is to her credit. but she was egging on the entire thing with Lewinsky who thought of her as a confident.

Look, I dont like it that Clinton was having this "extra marital gig"...but it really is Clinton bashing to engage him in that...

and at the same time not say much about the "misstatements" that Bush's buds have engaged in about A STATE AFFAIR.

I see few of the people who beat up on Clinton for his words on Lewinsky even utter a syllable about The words of The Administration on Iraq...which have been singularly without any merit.

Around the "net" I defend Bush harder then most do because most of the stupid Dems who voted for the war are like rats on the Titanic...trying to survive at any cost.

But it is not Bush bashing to say that NOTHING we were told about Iraq was accurate.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 03:55 PM

Rand likes to claim his neocon buddy libby is just in a
he-said/she said case.

Unfortunately simberg lacks the facts and a commitment to
the truth here.

Libby testified to the Jury he had never heard of valerie plame
before a certain date, however, several weeks before, he was
given a CIA briefing on the wilson report and that included
State department material talking about her roles in
Weapons material for the CIA.

There was also lots of evidence he was in several meetings discussing her.

So, it's not Libby vs Russert, it's libby vs Miller, Cooper,
Russert, Fleischer, Rove, etc....

Libby spent 2 hours talking with Judy miller about
the wilson's and then he claimed he hadn't
heard of them later.

that's called perjury

Posted by anonymous at February 23, 2007 06:25 PM

Rand likes to claim his neocon buddy libby is just in a he-said/she said case.

Anonymous moron, Scooter Libby is not "my buddy" in any way, "neocon" or otherwise.

But we're supposed to take seriously a moron who can't find the shift key, or punctuate?

Do you have any conception of how intelligent readers of this site think of you?

No, of course not.

You're a moron.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 23, 2007 06:35 PM

"I have listened to the LInda Tripp tapes, I watched "whats her name" (sorry cant recall it) from Arkansas the realator who did the "he raped me"..."

Juanita Broaddrick? Paula Jones? Kathleen Willey? Gennifer Flowers? Elizabeth Ward Gracen?

That's what is missed so often when people talk about the Starr hearings - the Lewinsky evidence was brought in to show a pattern of behavior on Clinton's part, that he used his political power to get sexual favors from subordinates. He lied about his affair with Lewinsky because admitting it would have established the pattern, and would thus set himself up for prison time on a rape charge.

Now, if you equate lying under oath to get out of a rape charge to what Libby is alleged to have done, then I feel sorry for the women in your life.

Posted by Ed Minchau at February 24, 2007 03:11 AM

Ed.

No.

Rape is a serious charge and no where in all the names you have mentioned have I seen the "foundations" of rape.

Every last one of them is at "best" and I mean at best a "intermural" office affair (inappropriate as it was) that MIGHT have gone a little past the point where everyone was consenting...and that is being kind.

Lewinsky was probably the "mold" for all of this and there was nothing but consent in her relationship to Clinton. The problem with "intermural extramarital affairs" is that one never quite knows when the brakes came on by one party and when one party is simply trying to reverse the 'power lever' and use it against the stronger one.

LIbby if one believes the charges was engaged in action which potentially harmed an agent of the US or the actions of the state.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 24, 2007 08:40 AM

Broaddrick was a rape. One that Clinton has never even denied.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 24, 2007 08:53 AM

http://plamegatetimeline.blog spot.com/2005/10/timeline-of-events-for-plamegate.html

Simberg when he has nothing else, chooses to harp on
grammar, punctuation and spelling.

Simberg can obfuscate, misdirect and lie all he wants,
but, his neo-con butt buddy was leaking classified
material all over town, and then, lying to the grand jury.

Hopefully, he will do time.

Posted by anonymous at February 24, 2007 04:42 PM

Anonymous troll, if leaking classified material all over town is worthy of prison time, they will need to build a special prison to house everyone from the new york times. If lying to a jury is worthy of prison time, then Libby should get in line behind Clinton. And if you're going to continue to make comments like that last one, have the courage to sign your name, you coward.

Posted by Ed Minchau at February 24, 2007 07:37 PM

Try reading the law, it might help you out.

Reporters are not required to protect secrets, they never
sign an oath under the Nat Sec Act of 1947.

Scooter Signed an oath that he would protect classified
materials. That oath carries criminal penalties.

I suppose none of Simberg's little chorus has ever
signed a classified materials agreement.

Posted by anonymous at February 25, 2007 03:19 PM

Post a comment