Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

And I challenge anyone reading this blog to point out where I slandered [sic] anyone, much less Kathleen Willey.

Posted by Andy at November 14, 2007 11:45 AM

Any reasonable person will infer from your comment that the theft is "alleged," that you don't believe her (i.e., she is deluded or a liar). That is either slanderous or libelous, depending on whether the courts think an Internet comment posting is like speech or publication. In this case, I suspect that there's malice involved as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 11:51 AM

Since it hasn't been proven, it's alleged. It has no bearing on her veracity, it's simply a statement of fact. If she proves it was stolen, and THEN I call her a liar, that is libelous. Until then, I am free to doubt it, here or anywhere else, in publication or speech, as much as I want.

By the way, her interview is laced with "I think" and "in my opinion," as those relate to the Clintons' involvement. Maybe they were. Maybe they weren't. But "I think" and "in my opinion" hardly constitute proof of fact.

And as for a Clinton-defender? Hardly. I'm more interested in proof and facts than conjecture. The man got a 'job in his office from an intern. Proven fact. Lied about it. Proven fact. Shame on him, and given him the punishment due, as well as for any other proven crimes. But allegations are not facts, and they shouldn't be treated as such just because you (you used generically, not anyone in particular) don't like someone.

Malice? Get real. I don't even know the woman, nor do I care one whit about her or her book.

Posted by Andy at November 14, 2007 12:14 PM

That's a separate issue, and a straw man. She doesn't know who stole it, but you seem to want to cast doubt on whether or not it was stolen at all. I wonder why? Why did you bother to comment at all?

And as for a Clinton-defender? Hardly. I'm more interested in proof and facts than conjecture. The man got a 'job in his office from an intern. Proven fact. Lied about it. Proven fact.

Committed perjury? Proven fact.
Intimidated witnesses? Proven fact.
Bribed witnesses? Proven fact.
Suborned perjury? Proven fact.
Obstructed justice? Proven fact.

Even the Clinton defenders know that they can't deny the BJ and the "lying" about it, but they persist in minimizing or denying all the other things that he did.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 12:22 PM

Andy, Willey states that a transcript was stolen from her house. You doubt that claim, thus you ARE calling her a liar. If I say that my copy of "A Man On The Moon" is missing, and you say "I doubt that Cecil" you are calling me a liar.

Are you going to next argue what the definition of "is" is?

Finally how are going to explain away your claim of "Yes, thanks, I did both"? How do you explain that you are not a liar?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 14, 2007 12:29 PM

(point of order: how do I do the italics, to quote?)

Rand: The implication made here in an earlier thread (by a commenter, or perhaps you) was that it was stolen by the Clintons. That is the allegation I am responding to. If I was not clear on that, my apologies.

As for the other crimes you quote, I never defended those, or apologized for them, your implication notwithstanding.

Cecil: No, see above. I doubt the unproven insinuation (hers or anyone else's) that it was stolen by the Clintons. Until it's proven otherwise, I can doubt all I want. If you want to characterize that as calling it a lie, that's fine–however, there's nothing anyone can legally do about it.

Note I tend to doubt any and all allegations of criminal conduct, by any member of either party or of any political stripe, until they are proven in a court of law. For me that's not about politics, it's about basic fairness.

As for your other question, I did follow the links. Just not the correct one. So, of course, there was nothing there to see, which obviates any need for me to comment on the content of the links.

Posted by Andy at November 14, 2007 12:50 PM

Cecil,

Andy will wag her/his finger at us and claim (s)he didn't lie about an allegation, while ignoring the evidence that (s)he did lie about reading the links. Later, (s)he will cop to lying about the links and suggests that is a minor issue compared to slander/libel, and no one should doubt her/his credibility on such important issues because of her/his lack of credibility on lesser issues. Finally, (s)he will claim some vast conspiracy set her/him up in a situation in which everyone else would lie too, thus slandering all of else.

In short order, Andy fatigue will set in, and the rest of us will just want her/him to go away.

Posted by Leland at November 14, 2007 12:53 PM

Italics are tagged like <em>this</em>

No, see above. I doubt the unproven insinuation (hers or anyone else's) that it was stolen by the Clintons.

You wrote in the other post:

And here I thought that manuscript was lost/stolen by those nefarious Klintons! I mean, didn't we just have this discussion a few weeks ago, and now, lo and behold, it's now a book!

That snarky second sentence implies, to any reasonable reader, that you don't believe it was stolen at all. As does your continuing insistence on using the word "alleged" with regard to the theft (again, independently of who the thief was). And of course, she never said that the Clintons stole it--that's yet another straw man, just as no one believes that the Clintons killed Vince Foster. They have other people to do their dirty work for them. Who else would have a motivation to steal it?

You are in an untenable position. You are claiming either that it didn't happen (Willey is lying) or that it's simply a bizarre coincidence that some random person would break in to her house and steal a manuscript of a book about the Clintons.

Still got to go with the slander, myself.

As for your other question, I did follow the links. Just not the correct one. So, of course, there was nothing there to see, which obviates any need for me to comment on the content of the links.

Andy, based on my dealings with you, there is no doubt in my mind, that had you followed the links, and found nothing about the manuscript theft, you wouldn't have simply "not commented on the content." You would have proclaimed to the world (or at least the readers of this weblog) that there was nothing there, and I was just baselessly slandering the poor Clintons. It would not have simply been "...did both, thanks."

But I expect that you'll just continue to flounder.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 01:08 PM

One other point--you can't keep your story straight even in a single comments section. You now claim that you're only doubting that the Clintons did it, when up above, you say the following: If she proves it was stolen, and THEN I call her a liar, that is libelous. Until then, I am free to doubt it, here or anywhere else, in publication or speech, as much as I want.

Nothing in there about the Clintons. You are demanding that she "prove it was stolen" before you'll believe her (how would you propose that she do that?--another reason to think that you're less interested in "facts and evidence" than you piously proclaim). You are unwilling (as you apparently do with the Clintons) to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Of course you're free to doubt her, here or anywhere. And we're free to point out the obvious implications of that doubt--that you think she's lying. No one here buys your story, Andy.

You can claim that you're not a Clinton defender if you want, but you certainly are acting like one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 01:15 PM

That snarky second sentence implies, to any reasonable reader, that you don't believe it was stolen at all.

Open to debate. But my reference was to the implication (made here, I'll point out) that since it couldn't have been some bizarre coincidence, that it simply MUST have been the Clintons. OK...prove it! Or move on.

Still got to go with the slander, myself.

Facts not in evidence. Until they are, it ain't libel. Your legal opinion notwithstanding.

Andy, based on my dealings with you, there is no doubt in my mind,... and I was just baselessly slandering the poor Clintons.

Why? Do you think I harbor some malice towards you or your blog? You're obviously an intelligent and insightful guy. I learn quite alot here. But I'm going to throw the bullsh*t flag when it's called for. And dragging people through the mud (ok, I realize there's already quite a bit of mud there, but...), having them convicted in the court of public opinion before they are convicted in a court of law, well, that's just wrong.

Nothing in there about the Clintons.

I thought it was self-evident.

You are unwilling (as you apparently do with the Clintons) to give her the benefit of the doubt.

She loses little by making the claim. Sen. Clinton loses alot, just in having to defend against such allegations (made by whomever).

Posted by Andy at November 14, 2007 01:43 PM

Me: You are unwilling (as you apparently do with the Clintons) to give her the benefit of the doubt.

You: She loses little by making the claim. Sen. Clinton loses alot, just in having to defend against such allegations (made by whomever).

In other words, despite all your protestations, you are challenging her veracity (not to mention defending Hillary Clinton).

I wish you'd make up your mind. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the old advice about what to do when in a hole.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 02:33 PM

But my reference was to the implication (made here, I'll point out) that since it couldn't have been some bizarre coincidence, that it simply MUST have been the Clintons. OK...prove it!

So, is it your claim that if it did occur, it was more likely some bizarre coincidence than that the Clintons or their supporters were involved?

Sorry, but when I hear hoof beats, I think horses, not zebras.

You sling the word "prove" around a lot. I'm not sure you know what it means. I'm still awaiting your explanation of how Ms. Willey would "prove," to Andy's satisfaction, that the manuscript was stolen. Not stolen by any particular person, but simply stolen.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 03:01 PM

Rand,
you're forgetting that in most home break-ins thieves are looking for about to be published manuscripts. When they don't find such, THEN, and only then, do they steal TVs, laptops, jewelry.

You posted just days ago on the death of Norman Mailer. I'll bet he stole every manuscript he ever had published in just this fashion. Who knows how much other stuff he took between books!

There you go Andy, do you still feel like you have no friends here?

Posted by Steve at November 14, 2007 04:05 PM

So, is it your claim that if it did occur, it was more likely some bizarre coincidence than that the Clintons or their supporters were involved?

I claim that it would be unfair to publicly insinuate that the Clintons did it, without some evidence.

Sorry, but when I hear hoof beats, I think horses, not zebras

I guess that's a matter of perception, isn't it, and it depends on who you are and where you live. After all, if you lived in Kenya, or even outside of the San Diego Wild Animal Park, you'd probably first think zebras.

I'm still awaiting your explanation of how Ms. Willey would "prove," to Andy's satisfaction, that the manuscript was stolen. Not stolen by any particular person, but simply stolen.

I'll just repeat what I already wrote: Rand: The implication made here in an earlier thread (by a commenter, or perhaps you) was that it was stolen by the Clintons. That is the allegation I am responding to. If I was not clear on that, my apologies.

Posted by Andy at November 14, 2007 05:22 PM

It appears my prediction so far has held true.

Posted by Leland at November 14, 2007 05:38 PM

Andy,
honestly, they, the thieves, ONLY took the book. Oh and her purse. They took nothing else and left her laptop on the desk. Who else would care about that book? Who else would NOT steal the laptop or anything else portable that was there?

That's either the Clinton's, their helpers or the dumbest person in Virginia.

WAIT, where was "W" on the night of the robbery? He did it to make the Clinton's "look" bad before the elections.

Posted by Steve at November 14, 2007 05:42 PM

Yes, well, here's the funny thing. As it happens, I don't live in Kenya or outside of the San Diego Wild Animal Park. I live in a world in which there is an abundance of evidence (something that you claim, hilariously, to have such great respect for) that the Clintons have been doing this kind of thing their entire political career, even ignoring Kathleen Willey and her book.

I wonder what kind of world you live in.

The implication made here in an earlier thread (by a commenter, or perhaps you) was that it was stolen by the Clintons. That is the allegation I am responding to. If I was not clear on that, my apologies.

That's nice to say now, but the abundance of evidence to the contrary speaks otherwise. And it makes no sense, as has been pointed out more than once. Either she lied about it being stolen, or it was stolen by cohorts or supporters of the Clintons, or it was simply randomly stolen by a nutty burglar. Based on everything posted to date (assuming that there is any kind of consistency to it, which there isn't) you seem to subscribe to either the former or the latter theory. If the former, you are accusing her of lying or being delusional (hence, the charges of slander). If the latter, you are a loon.

So what is your final position (bearing in mind that whatever it is, it will be undermined by several other things you've already posted)?

You want to make apologies? Here's one.

"I called Kathleen Willey a liar without basis. I granted the Clintons, who have been shown to be liars in the past, much more credibility than I should have, given their record. I said I read a link when I didn't. I'm sorry, and will try to do better in the future."

That would be an apology, and would earn the profound respect of the readers of this blog.

We won't hold our breath.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 06:20 PM

abundance of evidence (something that you claim, hilariously, to have such great respect for) that the Clintons have been doing this kind of thing their entire political career

Which is irrelevant, in a court of law, as to whether or not they orchestrated the "theft" of this manuscript.

That's nice to say now, but the abundance of evidence to the contrary speaks otherwise.

Then it should be a very simple matter for you, or anyone else, to prove it. Show me the money!

If the former, you are accusing her of lying or being delusional (hence, the charges of slander)

So sue me. Oh wait...no evidence that her allegation that the Clinton's stole it is true? Oh, now that's a shame.

That would be an apology, and would earn the profound respect of the readers of this blog.

No thanks.

Posted by Andy at November 14, 2007 07:31 PM

Ignoring the rest of your nonsense and obfuscation, this is not a court of law.

If you have so much respect for a court of law, I guess that you believe that OJ didn't murder his wife...

And the rest of the readers here are laughing at you...

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 07:40 PM

Me: If the former, you are accusing her of lying or being delusional (hence, the charges of slander)

So sue me. Oh wait...no evidence that her allegation that the Clinton's stole it is true? Oh, now that's a shame.

Just to note once more, you continue to obfuscate the issue that you accuse her of lying about the fact that her manuscript was stolen. Who stole it is an entirely different issue, on which she has only speculated.

This pretty much goes without saying at this point, but you are pathetic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 07:56 PM

What you just aren't getting, Rand, is that Kathleen Willey already called herself a liar, so it's completely fair for anyone else to also call her one. Here is what she says on page 133 of her book:

[A soccer coach who I dated in 1995] hurt me, and I wanted to shake him up and make him think twice before he treated another woman as badly as he treated me. So, after a while, I lied to him and told him I was pregnant. It was stupid and wrong, the worst mistake I've ever made in a relationship. When the FBI asked me about that relationship, I was ashamed of it --- embarrassed about what I had done --- and I denied everything. I did not know it at the time, but even if you're just answering FBI agents' questions, it is a felony to lie to them.

I told you that Willey's new book is amazing. She freely admits to lying, not only to her boyfriend but also to the FBI, and she lied to other people in other incidents as well. And, in her own version of events, she wasn't even honest enough to return stolen money. Because she was spending it.

Kathleen Willey's book is a complete argument that Kathleen Willey is unstable and untrustworthy. Not to mention self-centered and not too bright. No self-respecting person could write a book like this. If the same Kathleen Willey then says that someone stole her printout --- and that it mustabin the Clintons --- then that indeed isn't really evidence of anything.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 14, 2007 07:57 PM

What you just aren't getting, Rand, is that Kathleen Willey already called herself a liar,

At least she, unlike the Clintons, she admits that she's done so. And their record is much more extensive.

Are you really attempting to defend "Andy's" shifting positions here? If so, you're equally pathetic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 08:09 PM

she admits that she's done so.

But not with any contrition. Her concern in these outrageous situations was how her lies and thieving could bounce back at her. Not that it might be unethical or unfair to other people. The most amazing one is still that she admits to spending Tony Lanasa's money and isn't even sorry. Instead it was: big bad Lanasa wants 275 grand that my husband stole, so how can I get out of this one.

If Willey is that shameless about parts of her life story, it does make you wonder what she has done that she would still hide.

their record is much more extensive

So the argument is, although Willey rolled out whopper lies and shafted her friends, the Clintons are worse, so therefore she is credible? That logic just doesn't work.

Are you really attempting to defend "Andy's" shifting positions here?

There was no need for him to shift positions. All he had to say was, yes, Willey is a liar, she says so herself.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 14, 2007 08:41 PM

If Willey is that shameless about parts of her life story, it does make you wonder what she has done that she would still hide.

No, it doesn't make me wonder that at all. She's simply letting it all hang out.

On the other hand, it might make me wonder why morons would wonder about that.

What it makes me wonder is why people would attempt to use rare selected admitted (unlike the Clintons') indiscretions in the past to taint their testimony now.

Sorry, that was dumb. It is obvious why people would do that, though it's less so why someone would want to wade into "Andy's" quagmire...

Oh, wait.

Let me guess.

Another pathetic Clinton defender?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 09:43 PM

Why people would attempt to use rare selected admitted indiscretions in the past to taint their testimony now.

Sure, my spouse stole 300 grand from a client. And sure, I lived off of that money instead of giving it back. I still think that the client is a jerk for not meeting me half way. I offer no apology. In any case, that is a rare, selected, admitted indiscretion of the past. Now I'm trustworthy!

Posted by Jim Harris at November 14, 2007 10:46 PM

No, Jim.

You, like other Clinton defenders, who are thrilled to slander any woman who comes forward to use (as he did) any woman who was involved with him (literally, like toilet paper) are scum.

Whoops. Sorry.

That would be insulting scum...

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 14, 2007 11:02 PM

Interesting how you try to change the context here, to suit your own inability to support your argument. Nice try.

Go back and read every comment I've made, in this thread and the other. There is only one instance (the second post in this thread) where I refer to the theft of the book without adding the reference to the Clintons. Yet you seem to think that the theft itself, irrespective of the perp, is the crux of my complaint against Willey, You either lack reading comprehension skills or you are presenting a strawman.

This pretty much goes without saying at this point, but you are pathetic.

Yeah, that's pretty standard fare from you. Vescere bracis meis.

Posted by Andy at November 15, 2007 06:48 AM

Wow.

You had all night to think about it, and that's the best you can come up with? As I said, pathetic.

Simple questions: Do you or do you not believe that Kathleen Willey's manuscript was stolen?

If you do not believe this, you are calling her a liar (and are thus slandering her, a Clinton accuser, without basis). If you do believe it, then why do you think it was stolen?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 15, 2007 07:18 AM

Simple questions: Do you or do you not believe that Kathleen Willey's manuscript was stolen?

I don't know if one was stolen or not. By her own accounts, she inadvertently printed two copies on her printer. How do you "inadvertently" print two copies of a 256 page manuscript on a home printer? Maybe she didn't print two copies. Maybe she did and misplaced one. Other than her own word (and wouldn't that be great publicity for a book, to accuse the targets of your exposé of stealing it!), we'll never know (unless the Clintons fess up).

If you do not believe this, you are calling her a liar (and are thus slandering [sic] her, a Clinton accuser, without basis). If you do believe it, then why do you think it was stolen?

If the alleged theft was orchestrated by the Clintons, as she claims, I'd like to see proof.

Posted by Andy at November 15, 2007 07:53 AM

In other words, you will continue to obfuscate and avoid the question.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 15, 2007 08:21 AM

Do you or do you not believe that Kathleen Willey's manuscript was stolen?

There is not much evidence that it happened. Or that the Clintons had anything to do with it.

And again, it isn't slander to describe people exactly the way that they describe themselves.

But still, Willey's book is revealing. It describes a woman who made a mess of her money and her friendships. She needs privacy more than anything else. This go-around she will get it, despite her cries for attention.

Nor is this "defending" the Clintons in any way, shape, or form. Kathleen Willey simply has very little to do with them.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 15, 2007 08:30 AM

There is not much evidence that it happened. Or that the Clintons had anything to do with it.

The evidence is that she claims it was. As for whether or not the Clintons had anything to do with it, Occam's Razor applies.

You (like "Andy") can call her a liar if you wish, but don't simultaneously try to pretend that you're not, and that you're not a Clinton defender attacking a Clinton accuser. And demonstrating the very thing that her book is about.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 15, 2007 08:36 AM

In other words, you will continue to obfuscate and avoid the question.

Au contraire, I've been very specific about my complaint. And your question is posed as a false dichotomy; why bother with non sequiturs and strawmen?

Posted by Andy at November 15, 2007 08:57 AM

Au contraire, I've been very specific about my complaint. And your question is posed as a false dichotomy; why bother with non sequiturs and strawmen?

How can it be non-sequitur to discuss Andy lying when the original comment was about Andy lying?

Posted by Leland at November 15, 2007 12:37 PM

Post a comment