-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: March 8, 2007 12:12:30 PM PST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: "Republican Principles" -- an Oxymoron
An example of the Republican Party's ideological contempt for the
LAW --whether criminal or Constitutional-- except when enforced
venally, in self-interest, or expediently, as a political tool,
and their ideological opposition to JUSTICE, defined as an
objective, fair, nonpartisan principle.
A Crime Is Not a Crime
If Republicans Commit It
Jon Ponder | Mar. 8, 2007, 8:50 am
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/03/08/perjury-is-not-a-crime-when-
republicans-do-it/
Conservatives are outraged about the guilty verdicts in the Scooter
Libby case. The fact that Libby was convicted on four counts of
lying to a Grand Jury and to FBI agents is, they say, a trifling
matter for which there should be no jail time. In fact, Libby
should be pardoned and receive no punishment at all.
On “Hardball,” on the day the verdicts were announced, Ed Rogers,
the soul of soul-less rightwing authoritarianism, was so upset
about the verdict he started to cry. “I am mad about this!” he yelped.
The fact that 10 years ago these very same conservatives drove the
U.S. government, in all its majesty, into the impeachment of Pres.
Bill Clinton over something a trifling and tawdry as a sex lie
makes no difference now. The difference in the two cases is stark
and clear to the rightwing wannabe-oligarchs:
Libby was lying to protect the vice president and, thus, America.
Pres. Clinton is, you know — a Democrat.
Republicans who once railed about “the rule of law” and moaned
“What will we tell the children?” are now tap-dancing as hard and
fast as they can around legal technicalities and the fact that
there was “no underlying crime” (because there is no specifically
worded criminal sanction for taking the country to war by selling
it a package of lies).
Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-South Carolina) who was one of the House
members who prosecuted the Clinton impeachment, summed up the
Republican point of view on the Libby verdict:
“When it came to the grand jury, he gave false testimony allegedly
about his interaction. But the underlying charge that started this
investigation never materialized. So you have to put it in that
perspective…It’s a bad story but it’s a different story than the
way it started.”
Sen. Kay Baily Hutchinson (R-Texas), who, during the Clinton
impeachment said,”Something needs to be said that is a clear
message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for
perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray,” has changed her
tune. On “Meet the Press” last Sunday she said:
“I certainly hope that, if there is going to be an indictment that
says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and
not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the
crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years
of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”
Yesterday, on the same show, Kate O’Bierne, the right’s Mother
Superior on all things, said, with a straight face, that she
thought the jury was simply wrong — that Libby had forgotten, the
remembered, then forgotten, then remembered that he learned the
covert identity of the CIA agent from Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, not
NBC’s Tim Russert.
The rightwing press is in lockstep calling on Pres. Bush to pardon
Libby because, despite his having been tried in a court of law by a
jury of his peers, they say justice was not done.
If more proof were needed that Republicans simply do not believe
the rules apply to them, we certainly have it now.
Update: Behold! The conservative mind in its full fantastical
flower. Here’s a logic-torturing screed written last September by
Mark Levin, a girly-voiced troglodyte who made a name for himself
as a frequent and fervent pro-impeachment talking head during the
Clinton wars, in which he attempts to excuse conservatives’
hypocrisy on Libby’s perjury versus Clinton’s:
Unlike Libby, Clinton was not indicted despite overwhelming
evidence of his actionable lies and obstructions. Indeed, Clinton’s
offenses went so far as lying under oath during a deposition
overseen by a federal judge, who later held him in contempt of
court. Clinton never challenged the judge’s holding. During the
course of that sworn deposition, he also knowingly lied to his
attorney and knowingly allowed his lawyer to submit an affidavit at
the deposition he knew to be false and, in fact, helped to concoct.
Clinton’s lies had nothing to do with issues of recollection or
confusion, but were both overt and conspiratorial — including
suborning perjury. Clinton led the cover-up and Clinton sought to
fix the sexual harrassment lawsuit filed against him.
Unlike Libby, Clinton was the subject of the investigation. Libby
was a bit player. Clinton had every reason to lie and cover-up his
conduct as both the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky matters would
be politically devastating and expose him to civil liability. Libby
had no reason to conceal anything about his discussions with
reporters as those discussions were not criminal and, as we now
know for certain, he was not part of some White House cabal to
destroy Valerie Plame, as critics have long (and falsely) asserted.
So, I don’t buy the contention that if you argued that Clinton
should have been indicted that there is some logical and moral
equivalency between the cases. I don’t see it. Indeed, in the end,
in a deal with the Independent Counsel, Clinton admitted that he
“testified falsely” before the grand jury, he paid $25,000 to the
federal court that held him in contempt for his lies in the civil
case, he settled the Jones sexual-harassment suit for $850,000, and
was disbarred for five years from practicing law in Arkansas and
lost his bar membership before the U.S. Supreme Court.
As for impeachment, it is well understood that impeachment is a
political process which should be and has been triggered in rare
circumstances. The House concluded, among other things, that
Clinton’s testimony before the grand jury was, in fact, false. (It
rejected a count relating to Clinton’s perjury at the Jones
deposition, for which he was eventually held in contempt, thanks to
Lindsey Graham’s insistence that it was the weakest allegation
when, in truth, it was the strongest.) Indeed, Clinton’s grand
jury testimony in several respects was so absurd as to be
embarrassing. Clinton’s considerable hands-on efforts to obstruct
the investigation and use his office to protect himself as the
subject of the investigation resulted in his impeachment. He abused
his office even to the point of inventing phony privileges to
withhold information from investigators. Of course, Libby didn’t
serve in a constitutional office. Even if he had, Libby’s
recollections about what he said to which reporters is on a
completely different scale than Clinton spear-heading affirmative
and significant acts of obstruction.
In any event, I don’t see how the arguments for Clinton’s
impeachment are arguments for Libby’s indictment. I don’t see how
those who argued against the indictment of Clinton can now argue
for Libby’s indictment. And I do see why those who argue against
Libby’s indictment would have argued for indicting Clinton.
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
free from AOL at AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
