home

In Wingnut World

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 08:24:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In Wingnut World, the following is true:

From the July 5 broadcast of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:

BOORTZ: But in the case of Scooter Libby, Scooter Libby and Bill Clinton got sentenced and convicted for exactly the same crime. Can you -- now tell me, why is there so much outrage on the left that Scooter Libby isn't going to have to serve a 30-month jail term, and not a bit of outrage on the left that Bill Clinton didn't even get a 30-month jail term.

CALLER: I don't remember Bill Clinton actually being convicted for perjury.

BOORTZ: I'm sorry, he was.

< Gunning For A Pulitzer? | Gen. Odom: Use The Spending Power To End the Iraq Debacle >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    In Wingnut World | 49 comments (49 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    In wingnut world (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 08:37:59 PM EST
    1. President Clinton had Vince Foster killed.
    2. President Clinton was smuggling cocaine at the  Mena airport (or some such nonsense)
    3. President Bush was appointed by God to be President (apparantly God has it in for the USA)
    4. The Bushes are exemplars of integretiy.

    Someone else care to add to the list?



    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 08:41:12 PM EST
    In a poll, 81% believed Clinton for was convicted for perjury. That is a 50% jump from before Libby was convicted.

    So it must be true.

    Another Wingnut Comes Loose (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:11:49 PM EST
    Reagan's NSA Chief: Withdraw funds, pull out, impeach.
    Gen. William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, writes that Congress should begin cutting off funds for Iraq and must force Bush to begin a withdrawal before he leaves office:

    think progress

    Attention All Bedwetters (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:30:24 PM EST
    Neil Cavuto explains why universal health care programs are a leading source of terrorism.

    The sound of a well tooled wingnut spinning and spinning...

    Link (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:30:58 PM EST
    TPM

    Parent
    you knew that was coming (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by hhex65 on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:48:25 PM EST
    ...charcoal grilling makes us more secure...

    Parent
    This was inevitable (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:15:58 PM EST
    at the first mention of the doctors working for the National Health Service. I'm surprised it took them this long.

    Parent
    but "clinton did it"... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by lawstudent on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:14:00 PM EST
    i'm so sick of reading about the right throwing out the "clinton did it" defense.  the right hates bill clinton, so why would they think that offering the fact that bill clinton did something as a justification for their own actions?  if it's being used to show hypocrisy, fine, and it goes both ways...left and right.  but if it's used as a justification for their actions, then the right needs to step up to the plate and say there was nothing wrong with what clinton did either...

    Yeah, it's called Sailor's Law (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Sailor on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:46:16 PM EST
    Definition here.

    Parent
    lawstudent (1.00 / 2) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:56:13 PM EST
    It is called partisanship.... politics...

    Am I to understand that you are against it totally and won't engage in it???

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Sailor on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:57:44 PM EST
    and yet another personal attack.

    Parent
    Thank You (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Claw on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 11:19:15 PM EST
    lawstudent,
    Your point is very well taken.  The "Clinton did it" argument doesn't pass the laugh, smell, or sanity test.  Apparently one cannot complain about any crime committed by a member of one party if a member of another party has done something remotely similar.  Also, as has been noted, Libby, unlike Clinton, was convicted and sentenced.  Yet, unlike Paris Hilton, never even began serving before his sentence was commuted.  Usually commutations/pardons are made with some input from the justice department.  Not here.  Of course Clinton (I think) pardoned a few people without much DOJ consultation.  This makes Libby's commutation okay.  Really disgraceful.
    Clinton v. Bush (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Bushwacker on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    Just cut to the chase, Clinton got a BJ. His lie I believe was an attempt to save his marriage. In Bush's case, a fall guy was sacrificed to protect the persons responsible for "outing" a CIA agent. Libby, I'm sure has had the assurance all along that he would escape jail time for keeping silent. The American people  have gotten a royal screwing along  with the basic principle's this country was founded on. Liar's eventually begin to believe their own s--t. I'm so fed up with having my intelligence insulted.

    Clinton's lie vs. Bush's (none / 0) (#38)
    by BigMitch on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:06:02 PM EST
    Clinton lied to save a marriage. Libby lied to ruin one, the Wilson's.

    Parent
    Wingnut World (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:28:35 PM EST
    Seems like it would be a great regular column.

    Well... (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Strick on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:02:01 PM EST
    Technically Clinton was never convicted of perjury.  As I understand it, Clinton admitted his guilt when he left office as part of a deal with a prosecutor that prevented the country from going through the trauma trying a former President for perjury.  It seems he got special treatment on that one.  

    Clinton was found in contempt by the judge in the Paula Jones trial for his perjury and fined $20,000 (which a supporter paid for him).  Oh, and he lost his law license in Arkansas for 5 years and the right to try cases before the Supreme Court permanently.

    It seems those penalties are pretty much the equivalent of Libby's fine, probation and loss of his law license.  Neither spent a day in jail, though Clinton was spared the ordeal of a trial for purely political reasons.  

    Of course, Clinton was not found "guilty" during the impeachment, but that only dealt with whether he was going to be forced from office.  It was a political trial, not a criminal one.

    In that, Clinton got the better deal than Libby.  Libby was forced from office as soon as he was indicted.

    Nice Comparison (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:18:24 PM EST
    A blowjob and a war. Clinton and Libby. FItzgerald and Starr.  hhahahhahaha

    Parent
    strictly speaking you are incorrect (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:32:02 PM EST
    President Clinton admitted to violating the ethical rule about candor to the tribunal. I don't think he admitted to perjury, nor should he.

    Perjury is the  misreprestation or omission of a material fact. They key term is material.

    A lie about consensual sex is not MATERIAL in a case about sexual harrasment (i.e. non-consenual conduct).

    As I recall, perjury was one of the articles of impeachment and President Clinton was found not guilty of that particular offense in the only trial he got, the removal proceedings in the first coup attempt the by GOP since Hayes Tilden in 1876.



    Parent

    Nonsense... (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Strick on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:46:45 PM EST
    On April 1, 1998, Judge Wright granted summary judgment to Mr. Clinton, but she subsequently found him in civil contempt in a 32-page memorandum opinion and order issued on April 12, 1999, ruling that he had ''deliberately violated this court's discovery orders and thereby undermined the integrity of the judicial system.''

    Judge Wright found that Mr. Clinton had ''responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process [concerning] whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together and whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky.''


    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906EFDD153CF933A15752C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon= &pagewanted=2

    I believe Judge Wright found that President Clinton's perjury, oh, I'm sorry, "false, misleading and evasive answers designed obstruct the judicial process" were material.  There is no doubt that he would have been convicted of perjury and obstruction if he had the no deal had been made and he went to trial.  

    To say this wasn't perjury or that he wasn't guilty based on the facts and his own admission (however he weasel worded it, yet again) is intellectually dishonest.

    Parent

    No she did not find them material (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:57:26 PM EST
    Can you NOt read your own freaking comment?

    Judge Wright found that Mr. Clinton had ''responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process [concerning] whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together and whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky.

    She found that whole line IMMATERIAL to her decision on summary judgment.

    Just another asinine Wingnut. You and Boorts were made for each other.

    Parent

    Right... (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Strick on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:06:26 PM EST
    And yet she found it material enough to warrant finding Clinton in contempt and fining him $90,000.

    Sort of like how Libby's lies really weren't relevant to any crime in this case, isn't it.  It's pretty clear if Libby had told the truth, he wouldn't have been prosecuted any more than Armitage was.

    BTW it's nice having a typically rational exchange with people like you, too.  I thought we left the name calling behind in junior high.

    Parent

    Excuse me (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:15:13 PM EST
    Any prevarication under oath is theoretically worthy of sanction, but if you know anything about civil litigation, if this had been any other person, it would not have even been an issue.

    Perjury is a crime with a definition. Clinton did not commit perjury, was not charged with perjury and was not convicted of perjury.

    So you are full of crap.

    Parent

    Libby could have lied (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:56:11 PM EST
    under oath and NOT have been prosecuted for perjury... provided the lie wasn't material.

    To recap:

    Lying is bad.
    Lying under oath is bad, but is not necessairly a crime.
    A lawyer lying to the court (congress or any other tribunal), under oath or otherwise is likely to run afoul of the ethical canons- specificially the requirement of candor to the tribunal.

    Perjury has a specific definition and like any other crime, if you are going to charge someone with it (perjury), all the elements must be there.

    As an aside, a jury found Libby's lies to be material, so I think it is safe to say they were relevant and once again, you are incorrect.

    Armitage probaly wasn't prosecuted for two reasons: no evidence he knew she was NOC at the time he made the statements and  he cooperated. The latter is often the only way to avoid prosecution... unless, of course, you have low friends in high places, like our friend Scooter.

    Bush certainly delivered his promise to take care of any leaker in his administration. Its a family traditon as Cap Weinberger might attest.



    Parent

    In Wingnut World (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:32:20 AM EST
    It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!

    Parent
    MB (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:09:08 PM EST
    I would say that admission of sex with an intern would be called harrassment by NOW, given that the power relationship between the two parties is completely one-sided.

    As I have said at least a zillion times, I didn't care about his BJs. But if that had happened in any company I worked for in the last 10 years of my career, the management type would have been fired with cause.

    So the issue is not one that doesn't deserve debate in many people's mind. Clinton's fans would be well advised just to accept it and go on.

    As to his claim that a BJ isn't sex, I am yet to find a female who will admit they would accept that excuse from their husband.

    Parent

    And you lie (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:59:21 PM EST
    whne you say Clinton made a deal with a prosecutor. He did no such thing.

    He was never charged. Made no plea deal.

    You are either ill informed or lying. Or both.

    Parent

    From the New York Times article: (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Strick on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:12:34 PM EST
    Following are the texts of letters exchanged yesterday between David E. Kendall, a lawyer for President Clinton, and Robert W. Ray, the independent counsel, in which they agreed to a settlement...

    Given the steps the president is prepared to take, we know he might be legally prejudiced, as you have acknowledged in our discussions, if he signed the order prior to having an assurance there would be no prosecution.

    Big Tent, you don't think this "settlement" with the relevant "assurance there would be no prosecution" constitutes a deal to avoid indictment?  That's how the NY Times described it in another article.  Or are you saying that the NY Times is lying?  

    Do you need see the articles on the deal the Post published to believe what you see with your own eyes?

    Parent

    No I do not (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    What you want is a "plea bargain," and there was none.

    Clinton asked if Ray was going to charge, Ray said he was not and thus Clinton made a deal with a DIFFERENT body having nothing to do with Ray.

    You are flat out unimitgatedly wrong. Absolutely wrong.

    There was no quid pr quo between Ray and Clinton. What there was was a query from Kendall to Ray so that Kendall could act with regard to another body.

    Parent

    I never used the term plea bargain... (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Strick on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:32:10 PM EST
    So the NY Times was full of crap when it lead another article with this line, Big Tent?

    Lawyers familiar with agreement that allowed Pres Clinton to avoid indictment on perjury charges say it was set in motion when Robert W Ray met with Clinton at White House on Dec 27 and outlined the conditions Clinton would have to agree to...

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?offset=15&q uery=PERJURY&field=des&match=exact

    I agree it's not a plea bargain, but that's pretty much what I've characterized the agreement/settlement/deal as from the beginning.  Don't you agree?

    Parent

    The NYT was full of it (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:59:48 PM EST
    on Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee and Judith Miller's articles on WMD.

    I don't think anyone thinks the NYT is gospel.



    Parent

    IT is false (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 11:26:22 PM EST
    The NYTImes article you cite is simply incorrect.


    Parent
    The Times is Wrong? (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Strick on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:50:36 AM EST
    As are all these other news sources?

    President Bill Clinton has reached a deal with independent counsel Robert Ray to avoid an indictment arising from the Monica Lewinsky affair after leaving office on Saturday.
     The BBC

    On his last full day in office, President Clinton today finally acknowledged he testified falsely about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, striking a deal with Independent Counsel Robert Ray that allows him to avoid criminal indictment.
     ABC

    So many article put this in terms of a deal between the special prosecutor and the President.  A clear quid pro quo.  Even the text of the statement from Clinton's attorney implies that through the weasel words.

    Are you sure you're just not attempting a little revision of history here?

    Parent

    All of them wrong (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    Ask yourself, was Ray going to indict Clinton IF Clinton did not accept the Arksansas Bar's suspension of his law license?

    Clinton's GJ testimony admitted his civil litigation depo testimony was misleading.

    The deal was  this Robert Ray will announce the investigation is over, not make  too much of a fuss, and Clinton will let Ray pretend that what Clinton was going to do already was a result of the good work of me , Robert Ray.

    In the scheme of things, who cares thought Clinton. And he was right. Thst you really believe Ray "got this deal" in order to avoid indictment tells me all I need to know about your mindset.

    Parent

    Amusing (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jarober on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:27:39 AM EST
    The amusing thing is, the two cases are very alike.  In both cases, a special prosecutor was hired to find evidence for crime "A".  Failing to find crime "A" (in either case), the prosecutors went ahead and drummed up perjury charges on unrelated things.

    In Clinton's case, it never went to court - but the two cases are otherwise similar.

    Exactly alike (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:30:51 AM EST
    One involved the outing of a covert CIA agent working on WMD in Iran, the other involved a sexual harassment suit that dragged in personal consenual affair by a VRWC to trap the President into admitting he had oral sex.

    Yes, strikingly similar.

    Sheesh/

    Parent

    jarober (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 04:28:49 AM EST
    they were two polar opposite events. clinton put no one's life in danger, except his own, i suppose, when hillary found out. armitage clearly did.

    the only reason he wasn't charged was precisely due to mr. libby's perjury and obstruction. the damage had been done though. oh, and it's also clear, from mr. fitzgerald's recently released document, that based on the facts he had in hand from the start, ms. plame was indeed a covert cia operative, during the time in question.

    mr. clinton was never charged or indicted for anything, at anytime, by anyone. he made no plea bargain with anyone, at anytime, for anything. the nyt's, as usual, is wrong, if that's how they characterized it.

    gee, i'm shocked i tell ya!

    Parent

    Re deal (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:18:32 PM EST
    A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet.   Juilet (wasn't it)

    Southern translation - You kid your friends, I'll kid my friends...but let's don't kid each other.

    Parent

    Potty mouth (1.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:05:27 PM EST
    What Libby did shut down a CIA network dedicated to keeping your useless asses from being incinerated in a nuclear explosion. Clinton shot his wad on a Blue Dress.

    Hmmm. What a perfect example of a Leftwinger collapsing into a white hot rant.

    Can't resist the vulgars, eh? Make you feel better? More intelligent?? Stronger? Oh, now I've got it. You can call people names and they can't do anything about. Ahhh, I bet you even speak truth to power. What a guy.

    Okay. Can you prove your claim??? I mean maybe a link or two??

    Mrs. Wilson was an analyst. She may have in her past ran some actual "spies" but she wasn't doing it when she recommended her husband go to Niger.

    And leaving Armitage and Valley aside.... Have you ever wondered why the husband of this supposedly hush hush 007 agebt was writing articles to be published in the NTY's?? How could he possibly not have  known that his 7/16/03 article wouldn't attract attention???

    And I mean just look at what the left wing Boston Globe thought about the cover her supposed employer gave her.

    "current and former building managers said they've never heard of Brewster Jennings. Nor did the firm file the state and local records expected of most businesses."

    And even the CIA gave a very weak denial to Novak,  later claiming it was the best the could do.
    What???? According to you, they have a very important spy about to be exposed, and they can't keep a journalist from outing her??? Really?? I would think that bells would have been going off and the CIA would have been dispatching top level people to have a sit down with Mr. Novak.

    Yet they didn't. Strange, eh?? That is if your claim had any validity to it whatsoever.

    BTW - I never said a nasty word about Clinton's BJ's, and I thought the Repubs were dumb and dumber for bringing the subject up 24/7.... It was his other failings that I didn't like.

    In fact, I was dead set against us going into Kosvo, but know what?? When the troops went, I shut and supported them.

    Troop supporting, etc. Try it.

    What a perfect example ... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Sailor on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:47:19 PM EST
    ... of the wingnut world.

    Parent
    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:58:55 PM EST
    Got anything to dispute, or are you engaging in another of salior's attempts to introduce a strawman.

    Parent
    Hahahahaha (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    Ppj caught in a lie. Must be hard to square reality when two GOP talking points collide in the space of hours.

    Mrs. Wilson was an analyst. She may have in her past ran some actual "spies" but she wasn't doing it when she recommended her husband go to Niger.

    But I thought you just said that Wilson told Vallely that his wife was a covert agent.

    Molly Bloom puts it in a nutshell:

    On the bright side (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:41:15 PM EST

    Since you are convinced that Joe Wilson outed his wife as a NOC, you are conceding that she could be outed- in other words, you have conceded she was NOC  and, of course, that should dispense with your underlying crime nonsense.
    So we have made progress this week. Its been hard work rehabiltating you, but turning you into a good American citizen will be worth it in the end.



    Parent
    squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:31:38 PM EST
    If you deny that you don't understand the meaning of "in the past.." then I feel compelled to protest this unspeakable lie that you represent.

    Doesn't make sense?? Try reading your own comment.

    I have never said Mrs Wilson was not NOC during her career outside the US.

    If you read my comment re Wilson outing his wife the assumpation is that she was covert, and that if this is true, has he broken the law?

    And, if you assume she was not, then you can see why Wilson might not have been as careful as he would have neem

    That doesn't mean that I believe she was at the offset of the current unpleasantness.

    I  hope that that small excercise doesn't batter your brain too badly.


    Parent

    HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:36:09 PM EST
    You crack me up ppj.

    Parent
    Your memory is failing you now too, ppj? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 11:32:32 PM EST
    ACitizen:
    What Libby did shut down a CIA network dedicated to keeping your useless asses from being incinerated in a nuclear explosion. Clinton shot his wad on a Blue Dress.

    ppj:

    Okay. Can you prove your claim??? I mean maybe a link or two??

    Mrs. Wilson was an analyst. She may have in her npast ran some actual "spies"

    But I suppose faking a failing memory is necessary to maintaining deep denial. Coming from someone who wants to bomb Iran your attitude is sheer idiocy and ignorance. On purpose, probably.

    If Valerie Plame had been able to keep doing her job and her network in Iran had remained functional Bushco's propaganda about Iran could never move beyond the fantasy stage to a point where even the peasants would believe it.

    Valerie Plame Leak Sabotaged America's Iran-Watching Intelligence Effort

    The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned.

    According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

    Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program.

    While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation activities of Pakistan's nuclear "father," A.Q. Khan, intelligence sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area, focusing almost entirely on Iran.

    On March 16 in her testimony under oath before the House Government and Oversight Committee, Valerie Plame Wilson stated:
    "I know I am here under oath, and I am here to say that I was covert," she said, disputing claims to the contrary.
    ...
    "In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified," Plame sad in her opening testimony.
    She added,
    "While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence."

    The video is here.


    Parent

    How polite... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Strick on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:27:27 PM EST
    My, the level of discourse has gone down since Jeralyn started letting other people post here.  

    What's your problem, Big Tent?  All I said was that Clinton made a deal with the special prosecutor to avoid indictment on what obviously would have been perjury charges.  I can't imagine why that kind of deal would have been necessary if the special prosecutor, Clinton, and Clinton's lawyers didn't think that an indictment and prosecution (and probably conviction) were very real possibilities.

    Either way, I admit I was wrong.  I thought Clinton was fined $20,000 for giving "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process".  Totaled out it came to $105,000.

    That's getting closer to Libby's fine.

    You're wrong (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 11:25:12 PM EST
    He made no deal with the Special Prosecutor.

    That is simply false.

    Parent

    You're wrong (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 11:25:27 PM EST
    He made no deal with the Special Prosecutor.

    That is simply false.

    Parent

    fines (none / 0) (#21)
    by landjjames on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:32:18 PM EST
    And if anyone on this thread   thinks either Clinton or Libby actually paid the fines out of their own pockets then you're just gullible.  Both had deep pockets not their own.

    An annoying thing about Tony Snow (none / 0) (#28)
    by BigMitch on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 11:46:26 PM EST
    Today, Tony Snow responded to criticism from the Clintons about the Scooter commutation. Read the analysis by
    Big Mitch

    In Wingnut World | 49 comments (49 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment