« This and That | Main | Plame Turns Over Her Secret Decoder Ring »

True Confessions

The Logan Act:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Howard Dean, private citizen who holds no elected office in government:

"I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover," Dean told me. "I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them."

Of course, nothing will be done about this. But damn it, does he have to be so FLAGRANT in his contempt for the law?


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference True Confessions:

Comments (47)

Wait'll you hear the lies V... (Below threshold)
kim:

Wait'll you hear the lies Val Plame is telling under oath before Congress. She admits she was at breakfast with Kristoff in early May, and at the Democratic Senate Policy committee meeting, but claims not to have talked about her work.
===============================

It's okay. He's a Democrat.... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

It's okay. He's a Democrat. Different rules apply.

What laws do apply to that ... (Below threshold)
gemma:

What laws do apply to that crowd? Between the Democratic Party and the "Undocumented Guest Workers" there are a whole lot of people in this country operating totally outside of our laws. I guess our law enforcement agencies are too busy gearing up to enforce those new laws going on the books. You know the ones that concern using cell phones while driving without official plates or smoking in the car while passing a school or ..

Gotta go now. My head is exploding.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwww, Monsi... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Yeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwww, Monsieur!

Wow, Jay - Kim hijacks the ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Wow, Jay - Kim hijacks the thread right off the top. I'm sure you're outraged...

On the subject of the law - in your libelous post you haven't shown where Dean is acting... "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

I guess that means he isn't acting in contempt of the law, after all -- since you have failed to show where his actions violate the Logan Act.

And since that's the case, why would you choose to suggest otherwise? You stop short of suggesting he's violating the Logan Act, with your wimpy, passive cite of Dean being "...FLAGRANT in his contempt for the law" (in other words - he's not violating the Logan Act) - but the implication is clear.

Remember the SIX MONTHS it ... (Below threshold)

Remember the SIX MONTHS it took for the U.S. to get a UN go-ahead for the war? Do you really think Saddam didn't use them to hide WMD's? Now GUESS WHO tipped off Saddam's allies 6 months BEFORE WE EVEN WENT TO THE U.N., and why isn't HE in jail?

"I am trying to build relat... (Below threshold)
yo:

"I am trying to build relationships"

There's a difference between trying and "doing." Kerry "tried" to deal with the Vietcong in Paris ('72) and that didn't hold much water, either.

Dean tried to win the Dem nom in 2004.

I don't see much of a threat here. Heck, are any of these leaders actually taking Dean's calls?

But, you're dead on, Jay. This ass-pony running off his mouth in flagrant violation of our laws is disgusting and highly annoying. If only because he's dancing a victory jig over a fight which was never fought.

Posted by: Lee at March 16,... (Below threshold)
yo:

Posted by: Lee at March 16, 2007 11:28 AM

What?!

"since you have failed to show where his actions violate the Logan Act."

Jay didn't have to do anything to "show where his actions violate the Logan Act" or than to quote Dean.

Everything else you put up is equally inane and illogical. Granted, we're all used to you doing that; but, still ... if you don't have a point, artificially generating one is .. well, it's just lame.

correction:"or tha... (Below threshold)
yo:

correction:

"or than" = "other than"

Tsk tsk - along comes Freek... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Tsk tsk - along comes Freekeys with another attempt to hijack the thread. Bet your blood is boiling now, eh Jay?

Yo - great! let's talk about the words Dean uses. Which ones do you feel support Jay's libelous attempt to smear Mr. Dean?

How does "building relation... (Below threshold)
jpe:

How does "building relationships" with heads of state = "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States"?

Please, explain. I'd like to hear how, exactly, Dean violated the law.

Thanks in advance.

Well, since your guys are i... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Well, since your guys are in power, why aren't you writing to Alberto Gonzales and asking him to prosecute Dean?

Dean did this to himself. ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Dean did this to himself. He doesn't need Jay to smear him.

Could Lee be a Dean sockpup... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Could Lee be a Dean sockpuppet? (that's a question; not intended to be libelous in any way)

Lee,Please explain... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Lee,

Please explain what you believe to be the intent of the Logan Act (i.e. why is it needed ?)

"Dean did this to himsel... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Dean did this to himself. He doesn't need Jay to smear him."

vague and non-specific - just like Jay - Did what exactly, jpm100, that is in violation of the Logan Act?

Just because Jay is being wimpy doesn't mean the rest of you have to wimp out too... Here's your big chance to nail Dean - quit wussing out!

"...if you don't have a point, artificially generating one is .. well, it's just lame."

The whole point of the post, yo, is that Dean is in violation of the Logan Act (ooops - that's much too specific- -Jay prefers the feminine "flagrant contempt" instead).

Use Dean's words to hang him, yo. What in Dean's actions or words is in violation of the Logan Act?

We can't be more specific and more "on point" than that?!?!

I see underscoreMIKEunderscore is also wimping out. Stay on topic here Mike- we're commenting on Jay's post and the contents therein, Miike - keep up. Don't tell me you're also going to try to change the subject, and wimp out and not support Jay in his libelous attempt to smear Dean?

Boy, Jay - so far the two trolls attempting to hijack this thread is the most support you've gotten so far... changing the subject is all folks can do to help you out here....

Bush really pisses me off, ... (Below threshold)

Bush really pisses me off, because all these DemoRATS know they can walk all over him. WHERE IS MY FREAKIN' COWBOY???

This failure to indice the ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

This failure to indice the screamer for treason and his failure to go after previous traitors, almost the entire dhimmi delegation in D.C., is why Gonzales should be fired, not for firing 8 worthless lawyers. That's the only thing he has done right so far.

Lee, I don't think Jay's tr... (Below threshold)
yo:

Lee, I don't think Jay's trying to smear Dean, at all. Dean's doing it to himself. jpm100 pretty much says what needs to be said there.

I do find it interesting that you trot out words like "libelous" and "smear" with regards to this post as though it were something naughty, but you and yours have no apprehension, and feel highly justified, in using the same type of tactic when you're discussing the president, or anyone in the administration.

So if Jay's wrong, so are you.

As for jpe:

"I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover"

Takeover ... of what? How, exactly? Granted, I don't think he's discussing coup, but what of "impeachment?"

Still, don't you think Dean is putting the cart before the horse with regards to the Dems taking back the White House? If there were a president-elect (D), that would be one thing, but there isn't (yet).

And, if he's in cahoots with any impeachment concepts, he's not an elected official, and acts without the direct approval of Congress (and by default, the American people), so ... what is he doing?

What he IS doing (supposedly - since I don't believe a word that dribbles out of that asses mouth) is having "correspondence or intercourse with a[ny] foreign government or an[y] officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States."

He's on record, several times, being critical of the current administration (controversies) and is, by his own admission, discussing such in these meetings "with other governments."

Again, he's not elected, he's not been appointed into a role that has authorization to have discussions with ANY foreign entity, and if he is, which he says he is, discussing changes of power - based on controversies of Bush/Administration, he is, without a doubt, in CLEAR violation of the Logan Act.

Said.

Done.

Next.

Have you missed the words "... (Below threshold)
Rance Frayger:

Have you missed the words "in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States".

Dean did not (at least in the quote cited) admit to trying to insert himself in any disputes. You seem to be reading a lot into the phrase "trying to build relationships". I have cultivated relationships with any number of individuals and businesses without attempting to intervene in any of their disputes.

Well jpe, Let's fi... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Well jpe,

Let's first start with not ignoring the rest of what Dean said.

How does "building relationships" with heads of state = "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States"?

Dean continued where you left off:

in preparation for a Democratic takeover," Dean told me. "I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them."

Interesting wording, no?

Let's do a side by side:

Law:

correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof

Dean: "I am trying to build relationships with other governments"
.
.
.
- Can you disagree that this entails correspondence? Unless you want to argue that he's building a relationship with another government without the other government's knowledge.

Law:

with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof

Dean: "I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them."
.
.
.
- Can you disagree that Dean is trying to influence the conduct of foreign nations? Unless by better relationships, he's speaking of a different type of "intercourse" which I really don't want to think about.

Law:

in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States"?

Dean: "I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America-" "-we are going to have much better relationships with them."
.
.
.
- Can you disagree that Dean is speaking with the nations of interest over disputes or controversies with the United States?

It seems to be clear. I think it's enough for investigation at least.

Lee (the resident moron) bl... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Lee (the resident moron) blathered:
I see underscoreMIKEunderscore is also wimping out. Stay on topic here Mike- we're commenting on Jay's post and the contents therein, Miike - keep up. Don't tell me you're also going to try to change the subject, and wimp out and not support Jay in his libelous attempt to smear Dean?

Boy, Jay - so far the two trolls attempting to hijack this thread is the most support you've gotten so far... changing the subject is all folks can do to help you out here....

First point, Lee the underscore key is shift and the '-' key (upper right keyboard). If you really assert yourself, I'm sure you can find it.

Second point, you dodged my question. Please explain what you believe to be the intent of the Logan Act. It's okay that you don't understand, but just say that.

"Second point, you dodge... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Second point, you dodged my question. Please explain what you believe to be the intent of the Logan Act. It's okay that you don't understand, but just say that."

Nice try again underscoreMIKEunderscore, but this is isn't my post, and my interpretation of the Logan Act doesn't matter to you forming your own opinion, does it. You can think for yourself, yes?.

Stay on topic here - it's Deans words and Jay's accusation/smear/wussy that are the subject of this post and thread -- or you can continue to try to change the subject around to me if you wish - but you are doing Jay a great disservice by not stepping up his to his defense. He's looking really weak at this stage ---

You failed several times to address Jay's post - come on now - maybe the third time is the charm - try hard underscoreMIKEunderscore - you can do it! remember the little choo-choo that could - you can do it!

In this post Jay says Dean is in violation of the Logan Act (ooops - Jay actually prances around that instead - but you get the idea) --

How is Dean doing that underscoreMIKEunderscore?

Don't tell me you can't support Jay's theory either?

Lee,Looking at the... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

Looking at the letter of the law, and looking at Dean's statement while scrutinizing context and intent is enough in my opinion for someone to look into what exactly Howard Dean means by what he said.

In my last post I said as much.

"You failed several times t... (Below threshold)
yo:

"You failed several times to address Jay's post "

- Lee

And, once again, you're ignoring my responses to you, Lee. No offense, dude, but it gets tiring countering you only to have you flitter off-topic.

Cherry-picking your responses is a bit lame.

You mention Jay being a wussy and I'll state (in my best kindergarten rhetoric - so you'll be able to keep up), "it takes one to know one."

Lee (the resident moron):<b... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Lee (the resident moron):
Nice try again underscoreMIKEunderscore, but this is isn't my post, and my interpretation of the Logan Act doesn't matter to you forming your own opinion, does it. You can think for yourself, yes?.

I overestimated you apparently since I see you still can't find the '_' key.

Since you continue to fLee from my question, one can only conclude that you have no clue as to the intent of the Logan Act. If you did, then you *might* understand the problem, but since you don't...

Oh, and I take it you were scolded about off-topic posts ? Is that why you keep yelping like a whipped dog about it ?

yo - I ignored your respons... (Below threshold)
Lee:

yo - I ignored your response because Rance Frayger did an excellent job of slicing and dicing your points... --

Dean did not (at least in the quote cited) admit to trying to insert himself in any disputes. You seem to be reading a lot into the phrase "trying to build relationships". I have cultivated relationships with any number of individuals and businesses without attempting to intervene in any of their disputes.

Heralder counters with "it's worth investigating" - and I say feel free. Call up your local US Attorney, threaten them with a firing if they don't do what you tell them to do, then instruct them to smear Dean.

When they refuse, fire their ass - then see where that gets you...

rinse, repeat, lose the '08 election.

Jay, the two paragraphs you... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Jay, the two paragraphs you cite are totally unrelated.

I don't think Frayger does ... (Below threshold)
yo:

I don't think Frayger does anything more than layout a nice possible alternative; but, when all tolled, it could be apples and oranges. Seriously, what IS he talking to them about?

Besides, the lynch pin of my argument was that IF my assumptions were correct, then Dean would be in violation. Read my words closely.

I don't think Dean's got the goods to be discussing anything with foreign leaders and to be taken seriously (hell, I think the foreigners working the McDonald's drive thru window don't take him seriously). Which is probably why this'll all blow over. File under: no harm, no foul, I guess. He may still be guilty, but he's a worthless boil on the inner slice of the democratic badonkaDonk that no one, even dems, take seriously.

Of course, this does tend to lead to diminish the braying moonbats diaper tinkling over the loss of freedom and civil liberties. If Bushitler existed, Dean would certainly have been gulagged in Gitmo by now, wouldn't you think?

Whatever. Forgive my choice of vocabulary, Jay, but Dean's a douchebag. Every time he opens his yapper he sets decent political discussion back 50 years, if not more. But .. he's the leader of the DNC, so what's that tell you about the dems?

I want to make cle... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America. . .

Everyone who knows anything about America knows we have a two party system, so there's always "an opposition in America." Is Dean that stupid that he goes around the world telling foreign governments there's an opposition party in America? Maybe, but if you don't think he's that stupid then he's talking about something more substantial than an opposition political party. He must be talking about the democratically controlled congress.

. . .that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them.

So here's the part that interesting. What's Dean selling to these foreign governments? Is it some favor like open borders to the Mexican government, the stifling of the U.S. economy to the EU, a weekend U.S. military to the Russians, a full retreat of U.S. forces in the middle east to the Iranians, or what? Why is Dean out there now when there's still an election between democrats and the white house? Could it be Dean is selling future influence for favors from foreign governments before the election? Favors like opposing the current U.S. administration is ways that will help the Democrats. If that's what Dean is doing then he is in violation of the Logan act. We don't know if that's what Dean is doing, but there's enough probable cause to start an investigation. Not that it will happen, but it should.

Could it be Dean is sell... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Could it be Dean is selling future influence for favors from foreign governments before the election? Favors like opposing the current U.S. administration is ways that will help the Democrats.

Ha! This from the party of Reagan, who had Iran keep the hostages until the day he was sworn in, in exchange for receiving weapons shipments just a few days later. Can you possibly be taken less seriously?

And repeating lies over and... (Below threshold)
Boyd:

And repeating lies over and over and over doesn't turn them into the truth. Unfortunately, it make a lot of people believe that the lies are the truth.

Its good to know the Logan ... (Below threshold)
Sejanus:

Its good to know the Logan Act put an end to all that unseemly lobbying by US citizens on behalf of China, Mexico, Canada and Israel. Oh, you mean its different if you're getting paid? Their all registered? They didn't initiate the contacts? Of course they didn't and I just mailed the check. Keep up the good work you guys I love what you've done with the country.

Either Lee has hurt himself... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Either Lee has hurt himself trying to figure out where that blasted '_' is or is decided to fLee, as usual.

Does this mean we can also ... (Below threshold)
Just Asking:

Does this mean we can also charge republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani because his law firm received $100,000 to $200,000 to lobby for Citco? You know that Venezuelan state owned oil company Hugo Chavez has control of.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258899,00.html

Like fLee, Just Asking, fai... (Below threshold)

Like fLee, Just Asking, fails to understand the Logan Act. The Logan act doesn't prohibit U.S. citizens from lobbying the U.S. government on behalf of foreign nations.

Note Dean is engaging foreign governments attempting to act on the behalf of (future) U.S. government.

BrianHa! ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian

Ha! This from the party of Reagan, who had Iran keep the hostages until the day he was sworn in, in exchange for receiving weapons shipments just a few days later. Can you possibly be taken less seriously?

So that's your defense of Dean; it's ok because someone else supposedly did something similar, as if your statement was even close to true? It's also hypocritical considering your position on the firing of the US attorneys. Using your principle it should be OK for Bush to fire US attorneys because Clinton did so. As for the "they lied" nonsense, had Republicans made a big stink and investigated Clinton's actions they would have likely got incomplete information from Reno as well.

On a side note, Reagan did promise to deliver weapons to the Iranians, but only the warheads if they didn't release the hostages. I don't expect lightweights like you to know the difference, but there is one.

Mike,Thanks for clea... (Below threshold)
Just Asking:

Mike,
Thanks for clearing that up for us. Oh by the way what is the meaning of "is"?

Just Asking,Oh by... (Below threshold)

Just Asking,
Oh by the way what is the meaning of "is"?

It's a verb meaning 'to be'. You're still confused I take it ?

Wow, Mac Lorry, absolutely ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Wow, Mac Lorry, absolutely nothing that you wrote accurately reflects my position, nor anything I've said.

So that's your defense of Dean; it's ok because someone else supposedly did something similar,

I'm not defending Dean, because he didn't do anything that warrants defending. I'm just pointing out that when Reagan DID do something overt in undermining the sitting government of the US, none on the right seemed to mind.

It's also hypocritical considering your position on the firing of the US attorneys. Using your principle it should be OK for Bush to fire US attorneys because Clinton did so.

No, my position on the firing of the US attorneys is that it should be OK for Bush to fire them because they serve at the pleasure of the president. Just as for Clinton.

As for the "they lied" nonsense, had Republicans made a big stink and investigated Clinton's actions they would have likely got incomplete information from Reno as well.

Oh, now that's rich. So right after you (incorrectly) accuse me of using the "my guy's OK because your guy did it too" defense, you then turn around and immediately use the "my guy's OK because your guy PROBABLY did it too" defense? Gonzo lied to Congress. That's either wrong, or it's not. Make up your mind.

On a side note, Reagan did promise to deliver weapons to the Iranians, but only the warheads if they didn't release the hostages. I don't expect lightweights like you to know the difference, but there is one.

OK, so you freely admit that Reagan "without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commenced or carried on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States". Glad we straightened that out.

Mike,No confusion he... (Below threshold)
Just Asking:

Mike,
No confusion here, I just like using Clinton era right wing talking points to show the absurdity of Bush era right wing talking points. Thanks for the excellent display of your hair splitting skills.

As I suspected, you still d... (Below threshold)

As I suspected, you still don't get it. A U.S. citizen acting as a n negotiator FOR a foreign government at the foreign government request is fine. Acting as a negotiator of the U.S. government at the request of the U.S. government is fine. Acting as an unauthorized negotiator for the U.S. government is a violation of the Logan Act. The intent of the act is the prevent citizens from undermining the efforts/effectiveness/credibility of the U.S. government in its dealing with foreign governments... which it's certainly arguable that Dean has done.

Thanks for the further display of your failure to grasp the basic concept.

Brian,I'm... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

I'm not defending Dean, because he didn't do anything that warrants defending. I'm just pointing out that when Reagan DID do something overt in undermining the sitting government of the US, none on the right seemed to mind.

You're right, you didn't try to defend Dean at all. The first verbiage out of you was to claim some alleged crime by Reagan that's so great that it absolves all democrats from all future crimes. What's telling is your sharp rebuke when I don't buy into such lunacy. Obviously, you don't see it as lunacy, at least not when you use it.

No, my position on the firing of the US attorneys is that it should be OK for Bush to fire them because they serve at the pleasure of the president. Just as for Clinton.

Yet your moniker is on many posts supporting the Democrates calling for the rolling of heads over what you claim Bush had every right to do. Yes, you hide behind the old "they lied" trick, but the left's definition of a lie is a Republican making a mistake or leaving out any detail.

Oh, now that's rich. So right after you (incorrectly) accuse me of using the "my guy's OK because your guy did it too" defense, you then turn around and immediately use the "my guy's OK because your guy PROBABLY did it too" defense? Gonzo lied to Congress. That's either wrong, or it's not. Make up your mind.

I was using your own principle and said so in an attempt to show you how foolish it was. Glad to see you got it. Yes Gonzales lied to Congress; right when he addressed them as "honorable", but lefties aren't calling him a liar for that, they are using their "Bush standard" as I defined above rather than their "Clinton standard", which is that a lie about something like sex in the oval office is not a lie even if it's told under oath. By any honest standard Gonzales told congress all they needed to know and more about the firings, because Bush had every right to do so. Case closed.

OK, so you freely admit that Reagan "without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commenced or carried on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States". Glad we straightened that out.

The difference of course is that Reagan was a candidate for the presidency, Dean is not. Reagan publicly made it clear in his campaign that he would be strong on military defense and willing to use the military to free the hostages. He wasn't having private conversations with foreign governments behind the back's of the voters like Dean is doing. The Iranians knew Reagan wasn't bluffing so they release the hostages within days of Reagan taking the oath of office. I'm not surprised you don't see the difference, but if you could understand such things you wouldn't be a lefty in the first place.

Uh, what about the first am... (Below threshold)
mara:

Uh, what about the first amendment?

Certainly never stopped the... (Below threshold)

Certainly never stopped the Democrats before, and no one ever called them on it previously... why worry about it now?

Mac Lorry continues to inve... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Mac Lorry continues to invent things I never said, then bash me for them:

The first verbiage out of you was to claim some alleged crime by Reagan that's so great that it absolves all democrats from all future crimes.

You lie. I never said anything about defending Dean, nor about Reagan's transgressions absolving any future behavior.

What's telling is your sharp rebuke when I don't buy into such lunacy.

What's more telling is your jump to making shit up that I never said, obviously because you feel impotent to respond to what I actually said.

Yet your moniker is on many posts supporting the Democrates calling for the rolling of heads over what you claim Bush had every right to do.

You lie. Cite a post of mine that expresses that point.

I was using your own principle and said so in an attempt to show you how foolish it was. Glad to see you got it.

You lie. You invented a principle that I never used, then assigned it to me, and then mocked it. Sorry to see you don't feel capable to address my actual expressed position.

their "Clinton standard", which is that a lie about something like sex in the oval office is not a lie even if it's told under oath.

Why does that matter? We could instead use the "Republican standard", which seems to be that a lie about supposedly "telling the truth about a liar" is not a lie even if it's told under oath. Same difference. (Although one was about sex, and one was about national security.)

By any honest standard Gonzales told congress all they needed to know

The only standard for Gonzo to use when reporting to Congress is "the truth". He did not tell the truth. Spin it how you like, he had no right to lie. Case closed.

The difference of course is that Reagan was a candidate for the presidency, Dean is not.

So you once again concede that Reagan undermined the sitting president of the US, but excuse that behavior because he was a "candidate for the presidency". Good to know.

The Iranians knew Reagan wasn't bluffing so they release the hostages within days of Reagan taking the oath of office.

THE day. And they received weapons as payment "within days".

I'm not surprised you don't see the difference, but if you could understand such things you wouldn't be a Republican in the first place.

Brian,You... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

You lie. I never said anything about defending Dean, nor about Reagan's transgressions absolving any future behavior.

Well you better go back an read what you wrote here. As I said in my last post, you didn't defend Dean. What you did was make a comparison to something you mistakenly think Reagan did, as if that absolved Dean from what I pointed out was probable cause of a crime.

Being you now admit you weren't defending Dean nor were you claiming that what Reagan is alleged to have done has any bearing on this issue, then my case of probable cause against Dean stands. By your own admission, your response to that post was meaningless babble. Obviously you couldn't come up with an argument against what I said, so you just tried to confuse the issue.

So you once again concede that Reagan undermined the sitting president of the US, but excuse that behavior because he was a "candidate for the presidency". Good to know.

You lie. I never conceded any such thing. As a candidate for public office, statements Reagan made in his campaign are protected by the first amendment. Even a lightweight like you should know that. However, Dean is making public statements that he has communicated with foreign governments. While his public statements are protected speech, the private communications he is having with foreign governments is not protected. Dean is either playing liberals as fools (an easy thing to do) or he's making deals with foreign governments that may be illegal. Are you going to address the issue this time or are you just going post more meaningless babble?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy