I find it really interesting that the sex offender and convicted perjurer, William Jefferson Clinton, is still the most popular person to the Democrats. The Democratic Party constantly talks about the Republican Party as having a "Culture of Corruption". In examining history though, that conclusion may not be so obvious.
1) Rep. Mark Foley, Republican from Florida, sent some clearly inappropriate (horny) emails to Congressional pages. There was never any indication that he engaged in any sexual activity with those pages. There was a national uproar which led to the ousting of Rep. Foley from the House of Representatives. By contrast, Rep. Gary Studds, Democrat from Massachusetts, was actually caught in the act of having sex with an underage Congressional Page. Did the Democrats scream for the pedophile predator's expulsion? Did the Democrats wail about ethical standards in Congress? No. They made him a committee chairman and supported his re-election to three or four more terms.
2) When Rep. William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, is caught red-handed with $90,000 in cash in a freezer in his house, he is not investigated by the Ethics Committee. He is given a committee chairmanship by the Democratic leadership. Just for completeness, the same Rep. Jefferson was recently indicted on nineteen counts of corruption. There is still no uproar from the Democrats in Congress.
3) Sandy Berger steals classified documents from the National Archives to cover up what the Clinton Administration knew prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and only has to pay a fine. Despite being neither indicted or accused of anything, the Democratic Party calls on Karl Rove to resign during the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation. The hypocrisy is astounding.
4) Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Majority Leader, makes hundreds of thousands of dollars from real estate he does not own. In his defense, I suppose it is impossible to be elected in Nevada without having connections to crooks, given the history of the state.
5) The most obvious example, however, is how despite abusing his power as President to have sex with a White House intern and being convicted of perjury, William Jefferson Clinton continues to be the most popular Democrat in the party. The Democrat's argument about his perjury at the time was "It is only about sex". Apparently, in the Democratic Party, individuals are free to choose which subjects they are allowed to perjure themselves about. A question was asked at the Democratic Party debate about how to use former President Clinton in a new Democratic administration. All of the candidates had grandiose plans for him. Not one candidate has the nerve or moral fortitude to call him to task for his past actions and to not hold him up as a superb leadership example.
The party that owns the true "culture of corruption" is obvious.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Pardon controversy
This whole Lewis Libby sentencing thing is becoming very intriguing. Thirty months is a long time to spend in jail when you are Libby's age. I am generally not a pardon aficionado but this case does have some interesting factors:
1) The judge said that someone in as high a position in the government as Libby's should be held to a higher standard and, therefore, the sentence would be stiff. I suppose it is redundant to point out that the President of the United States was convicted of the same offense a few short years ago and only had his law license revoked and served no jail time. It is clearly adverse and impractical to try a President while in office but it could have been once he left office. It is obvious that position is not a factor given this comparable case.
2) The Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knew specifically that Richard Armitage was the definitive source of the information about Valerie Plame very early in his investigation. With this knowledge, he a) continued the investigation, and b) not only allowed, but encouraged speculation that that others (Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, etc.) were involved to keep press coverage intense. This strikes me as prosecutorial misconduct.
3) Fitzgerald also continued the investigation after testimony under oath by Victoria Toensing, the individual who authored the law in question, that it specifically and clearly did not apply to Valerie Plame. Therefore, the "crime" he was investigating could not have possibly been committed.
4) Knowing that there was no crime and who the leaker was, Fitzgerald continued the investigation for at least another year.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Fitzgerald, a Clinton appointee, wanted to "get" higher profile targets and is taking out his frustration on Lewis Libby. Given the bogus nature of the investigation, many argue that Libby shouldn't have even been prosecuted. While the investigation was bogus, I still believe if he actually lied under oath, there should be a penalty. Sandy Berger paid a fine for stealing classified documents. Bill Clinton had his law license revoked for perjury. Thirty months just seems excessive.
1) The judge said that someone in as high a position in the government as Libby's should be held to a higher standard and, therefore, the sentence would be stiff. I suppose it is redundant to point out that the President of the United States was convicted of the same offense a few short years ago and only had his law license revoked and served no jail time. It is clearly adverse and impractical to try a President while in office but it could have been once he left office. It is obvious that position is not a factor given this comparable case.
2) The Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knew specifically that Richard Armitage was the definitive source of the information about Valerie Plame very early in his investigation. With this knowledge, he a) continued the investigation, and b) not only allowed, but encouraged speculation that that others (Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, etc.) were involved to keep press coverage intense. This strikes me as prosecutorial misconduct.
3) Fitzgerald also continued the investigation after testimony under oath by Victoria Toensing, the individual who authored the law in question, that it specifically and clearly did not apply to Valerie Plame. Therefore, the "crime" he was investigating could not have possibly been committed.
4) Knowing that there was no crime and who the leaker was, Fitzgerald continued the investigation for at least another year.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Fitzgerald, a Clinton appointee, wanted to "get" higher profile targets and is taking out his frustration on Lewis Libby. Given the bogus nature of the investigation, many argue that Libby shouldn't have even been prosecuted. While the investigation was bogus, I still believe if he actually lied under oath, there should be a penalty. Sandy Berger paid a fine for stealing classified documents. Bill Clinton had his law license revoked for perjury. Thirty months just seems excessive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)