« The Impossible Just Takes Longer | Main | Who won the GOP Debate last night? »

I'm so confused...

Thoreau famously said "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Most folks, though, overlook the essential "foolish" qualifier.

With that in mind, I am trying to reconcile a few things in my head:

  • The Democrats say that we need the courage to talk to everyone, even those with whom we disagree, but refuse to allow Fox News to co-sponsor their debates. (Considering how professionally Fox has handled the Republican debates so far, compared with CNN's pathetic work at Sunday's Democratic debate, this is even more puzzling.)
  • Under the old rules, accusations of misconduct (Mark Foley) or an indictment (Tom DeLay) were considered adequate grounds for demands for resignation. But under the new rules of The Most Ethical Congress in History, the same does not seem to apply to Dianne Feinstein or William Jefferson Clinton.
  • Also, The Most Ethical Congress In History is apparently attempting to rehabilitate corrupt scumbags by giving them positions of power and authority, in hopes it will dissuade them from further corruption. At least that seems to be behind the status of Dianne Feinstein, John "Abscam" Murtha, Alcee "impeached and convicted" Hastings, and William Jefferson (nominated for the Homeland Security committee by the Democrats, blocked only by outraged Republicans).
  • Scooter Libby is a traitor and deserves even more than the 2.5 years in jail he's been sentenced to for misremembering conversations with journalists (whose own memories were proven equally shoddy), but Sandy Berger can steal and destroy vital documents relating to 9/11 without serving a day in jail, and Bill Clinton can lie under oath to save his own ass just because "it was only about sex."
  • And why isn't Richard Armitage in jail, too, for that matter? He's the one who leaked Plame's identity in the first place.
  • "Choice" is good when it comes to reproductive freedom or sexual orientation, but bad when it comes to education, self-defense, health insurance (whether or not to have it), motor vehicles, or seat belts.

Somewhere, there has to be a Grand Unified Theory that reconciles all these apparently contradictory notions that seem to sum up the Democratic platform, but I don't see any political Hawkings out there working on the question.


Comments (193)

Easy. The things ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Easy.

The things that matter to the Democratic Elite and Democratic Extreme would prevent them from being elected if discussed in depth to the general public. So all the rest of these 'issues' are window curtains that can be changed with relative ease.

This duplicity would normally be challenged, even 30 years ago. But an Activist Media now lets them away with it.

Great post to the hypocrisy... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Great post to the hypocrisy of the left.

I have a life long friend that is basically about 1000 miles west of Berkeley on the political spectrum. Once she got her PhD, she moved to MA, and slowly, her strong political disagreements to my opinion are becoming less so.

She finds it hard to reconcile 'selective choice', selective enforcement' of laws, and yes, almost 2 yrs later, is finally starting to figure out it wasnt the fed govt that F'd up the katrina disaster, it was the elected govt in place in NO and LA that F'd it all up.

Im sure the attention starved koskids here will do all they can NOT talk about lib hypcorisy that is so clearly evident these days.

Don't forget Wolf's repeate... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Don't forget Wolf's repeated attempts to draw the Republican candidates into a debate on religion. I thought they handled the questions very eloquently. Of course there were no simliar questions for the Dems, not wanting to expose their wishy-washiness on the issue. You know, you can't PO the atheists, and you can't alienate the leftward believers. It's so difficult to remain on both sides of an issue! LOL

Jay, are you getting a litt... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Jay, are you getting a little bit sensitive? Should we kick out every Congressmen that is accused of wrong doing? Berger destroyed copies of documents (no vital information was lost). Clinton lied to the American people and not under oath. Jefferson has been removed from his committee and will probably resign in the next day or two. Armitage should be in prison (another scumbag neo-con member of the Bush administration).

Meanwhile in the real world Turkey just invaded Iraq.

Thoreau famously said, "I w... (Below threshold)
Senor Cardgage:

Thoreau famously said, "I wish people would stop confusing me with Emerson."

Barney is a perfect example... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney is a perfect example of the liberal hypocrisy. THat 's why it is better to elect more Reps and conservatives. Why because liberals will care more about ethics and the rule of law. When the liberal dems are in power, the liberals will not only tolerate but also excuse the liberal sewage.

Jay, you only have to read ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jay, you only have to read BG2's comments for the answer to your post. They are very selective in the facts. Everything is nuanced. Clinton's law license was suspended for lying to the american people. Sandy Berger stuffed documents down his pants and hid them in a construction dumpster to retrieve later so he could destroy them, but they were copies. Diane Feinstein is a protected woman from California with a D after her name, so she can stay. There is nothing similar in the partys when it comes to integrity. The republicans keep theirs. The democrats lost theirs a long time ago. ww

ww, Exactly the poi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

ww,
Exactly the point. Liberals know that they are defending a "lie", a corrupt movement. That 's why they cannot do anything but spin.

I love a seeing a good self... (Below threshold)
Ben:

I love a seeing a good self inflicted irony causing a a train of thought to jump its rail, like seeing a post start out with:

"Jay, are you getting a little bit sensitive?"

and end up with

"(another scumbag neo-con member of the Bush administration)."

And to think the irony is most likely lost on the writer!

BTW, "Vital information lost" is not only irrelevant but violates physics, but the real issue is "vital information compromised". On that count, if Armitage should be in prison, clearly Berger deserves a rusty railroad spike through his skull.

And in the real world, Turkey pursued terrorists into Iraq. It is possible to be a Kurd AND a terrorist. If the Kurds weren't getting their own act cleaned up along their northern border, shame on them. We may have to sterilize a portion of Pakistan's landscape for the same reasons.

Ben

Jay, commenter Senor Cardga... (Below threshold)
sissoed:

Jay, commenter Senor Cardgage is right -- Emerson said it, not Thoreau.

Thank you so much, Barney, ... (Below threshold)

Thank you so much, Barney, for being so clueless as to not realize you just made Jay's point for him.

Gotta love idiot lefties. They make conservatives' job so much easier.

In the case of the Democr... (Below threshold)

In the case of the Democrats the foolish consistency is the idea that anyone with a D after their name is to be protected and anyone with an R after their nme is to be destroyed. The particular actions being condemned or ignored do not matter.

I tried to give the source ... (Below threshold)

I tried to give the source of the quote inside a blockquote html command but it did not appear in the comments so here it is.

http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/foolishconsi.html

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds


A great person does not have to think consistently from one day to the next. This remark comes from the essay "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson does not explain the difference between foolish and wise consistency.

Sorry, Barney Google. You ... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

Sorry, Barney Google. You are wrong.

First: Clinton lost his law license for lying under oath during the Paula Jones trial. He was asked under oath about an affair with Monica Lewinsky and he lied about his involvement with her.

Second: Even the officials at the National Archives could not state for a fact that the documents Berger destroyed were copies. Some were but they could not state the same for all documents.

Barney, you fucking idiot. ... (Below threshold)
TR19667:

Barney, you fucking idiot. Nice rewrite of history.

Clinton lied to a grand jury investigating whether he told Monica to lie, along with lying to the public over the TV. And there a documents missing from the archives that still haven't surfaced, but "no vital information was lost"....no, just some of the notes about Clinton's discussions with advisors wrt OBL.

Liberal hypocrisy is beyond... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Liberal hypocrisy is beyond parody

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/majorityap/2007/jun/05/jefferson_looks_to_shatter_corruption_record_embattled_louisiana_congressman_gave_thousands_to_dccc

William Jefferson (D-LA) Shatters Corruption Records: Democrat Possibly The Most Corrupt Congressman Ever.

I admit when I am wrong so ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I admit when I am wrong so prove me wrong. Show me the court finding in the Berger case that proves he took originals and not copies. Also, show me the Senate finding that proves Clinton lied under oath in his Paul Jones disposition.

Don't link to editorial bullshit. Show me the actual findings of the proceedings that determined guilt or innocence.

The prosecutor in the Berger case has repeatedly stated that no originals were destroyed, and Clinton was not convicted in the Senate.

Barney, When was Ma... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney,
When was Mark Foley convicted in courts? How about William Jefferson?
You hypocrisy is clear. You are defending the liberal sewage and that is clear. You want to indulge in that, it is your choice. But don't pretend to care about ethics or morality.

"Arguing" with lefties like... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

"Arguing" with lefties like Barney is pretty darn stupid.

conservative: It sure is a nice here today.
Barney: No it isn't, it's overcast and rainy where you are.
conservative: Are you nuts? It's a beautiful, blue sky.
Barney: Here's a {link} to a weather page showing it's raining.
conservative: Ummm, that's yesterdays' weather page.
Barney: Ha, you didn't read the forecast, it called for cloudy and rainy today. You really are a moron, you know that conservative?
conservative: Here's a [link] to today's doppler radar, notice no clouds.
Barney: Oh, so it never rains where you are?
conservative: I never said it doesn't raine here, I said it's a nice day today
Barney: Ha!! You misspelled rain. You're so wrong and I'm right.

And so on around the May Pole.
I used to get sucked into that 3rd grade "debate", now, I just point and laugh at nitwits like him. His every comment shows him to be dishonest (as can be seen in Jay's "I'm confused" post), ignorant and really just a partisan hack who will say anything to further his cause.

He's only worth poking with a stick to watch him jump around and fling poo. That's often entertaining.

Veeshir, lol!! Now excuse ... (Below threshold)

Veeshir, lol!! Now excuse me while I clean my monitor.

He's only worth poking w... (Below threshold)

He's only worth poking with a stick to watch him jump around and fling poo. That's often entertaining.

I'll be durned. A lefty with one redeeming value... he's entertaining to watch!

Barney, show me wh... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Barney,

show me where, other than from Sandy himself, how they determined what was taken.

Aonther point to be confuse... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Aonther point to be confused about

http://www.jewcy.com/daily_shvitz/bottom_news_of_the_week_george_bush_is_the_superhero_of_hiv_aids_relief

George Bush: HIV/AIDS Relief Superhero

BarneyG. Veeshir pegged yo... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

BarneyG. Veeshir pegged you perfectly. If you believe the BS you post here, you are beyond help. If you do not, you are beyond hope. I think whatever institution you are in should revoke your computer privileges. Unfortunately, you are not alone. Here is a little something to keep in mind. Right is right and left is wrong.

If Sandy Berger is innocent... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

If Sandy Berger is innocent, I would really be concerned about the fine and probation and the security clearance he lost because of doing nothing.

Bill Clinton had his law license suspended but he did not do anything.

What color do you all think the sky is in Barney's world? ww

Posted by: BarneyG2000</... (Below threshold)

Posted by: BarneyG2000

I admit when I am wrong so prove me wrong. Show me the court finding in the Berger case that proves he took originals and not copies. Also, show me the Senate finding that proves Clinton lied under oath in his Paul Jones disposition.

...

The prosecutor in the Berger case has repeatedly stated that no originals were destroyed, and Clinton was not convicted in the Senate.


Liberal logic - House convicts, Senate doesn't - so therefor reality never happened. And stealing copies is OK. (Like to see you get that one past RIAA.)

I never said that Berger di... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I never said that Berger did not break the law only that the documents he took were copies. Jay and everyone else claim that original source material was destroyed.

I was the one that pointed out that Clinton lied to the American people correcting Jay's acquisition that Clinton lied under oath. I am assuming he was referring to the Paula Jones disposition.

I am still waiting for proof that Berger destroyed original source material and Clinton perjured himself in the Jones deposition.

Barney, the following link ... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

Barney, the following link should help you out:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/

This is the CNN report regarding Clinton's admission to "misleading statements" involved in various testimonies regarding the Lewinski affair. However you want to sort it out, he lied under oath. If it had not been under oath, there would not have been a case.

See? It's like hitting your... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

See? It's like hitting yourself in the head with a Silly Putty hammer.

You see, because of the definition of "sex" and the fact that Barney won't believe or even discuss the notes in the margins of the memos he stole, hid in socks then moved them to a dumpster outside and then came back for them later.
It was all inadvertent and Clinton did not have sex with that women.

sshiell, this is the best y... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

sshiell, this is the best you got? From your article:

But David Kendall, the president's personal lawyer, said Clinton's statement was not an admission that he lied or obstructed justice.

"He has from the beginning, at least from the grand jury, conceded that he tried to conceal the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky," Kendall said. "He tried to conceal that, and we have acknowledged that that was evasive and misleading. But it's not obstruction of justice. It's not intentional falsification."

If he lied under oath then why was he acquitted in the Senate?

"Barney won't believe or ev... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Barney won't believe or even discuss the notes in the margins of the memos he stole.." veeshir

Prove to us all that the documents had original source material marginal notes.

Gentlemen (and ladies),... (Below threshold)

Gentlemen (and ladies),

I can make it real easy to comprehend Barney's logic.

If a Democrat did it, it's good or at the very least excusable.

If a Republican did it, it's the most evil thing ever.

See? Simple.

Why was he convicted in the... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Why was he convicted in the House?

the Senate was a wash 50-50.

If he commited no crime the vote should have been 0-100.

BJ Clinton exposed for all to see the Criminal and serial lying democrats. Good joob BJ.

About Barney Loser Asscl... (Below threshold)
BillyBob:

About Barney Loser AssclownHe's only worth poking with a stick to watch him jump around and fling poo. That's often entertaining.

ROFLMAO! Ya nailed it!

Clinton lied to th... (Below threshold)
stan25:
Clinton lied to the American people and not under oath.

I guess that Barney does not think that lying under oath in a civil proceeding is perjury. It sure the hell is, just as it is in a criminal proceeding. Slick Willie told a bald face lie when he made that deposition in the Paula Jones case and when he made that speech to the American people. Barney and his ilk are all for Hillary, yet you ignore her background. She is a bigger liar and crook than Bill.

We should bookmark this lin... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

We should bookmark this link as another example in the long list of Barney 's spin. Barney is beyond parody. He is a fully fledged member of Brian 's club.

Jay and everyone else cl... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jay and everyone else claim that original source material was destroyed.

It is in fact a matter of historical record, according to all investigative agencies, that:

a) Berger destroyed no original documents, and
b) that he destroyed no original Clinton-marginalia on these documents.

It appears that the setup of the National Archives is that people with clearance have copies from hard drives printed out for them. They are then supposed to destroy before leaving, so as not to violate security policy.

Berger was apparently lazy and arrogant, and didn't feel like hauling his lawyerly ass back in another day to look at the same documents. So he took the *copies* out with him.

Thus Berger was caught and paid a $50,000 fine for violating national security.

Here's the Wall Street Journal article on the resolution of the whole mess:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006534

What follows is their words, not mine:

"On Wednesday, we quoted Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman that no original documents were destroyed, and that the contents of all five at issue still exist and were made available to the 9/11 Commission. But that point didn't register with some readers, who continue to suggest a vast, well, apparently a vast left- and right-wing conspiracy....

"The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an "urban myth," prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was "so inaccurate as to be laughable." In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror "after-action" report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.

"Those documents, emphatically, without doubt--I reviewed them myself--don't have notations on them," Mr. Hillman tells us. Further, "there is no evidence after comprehensive investigation to suggest he took anything other than the five documents at issue and they didn't have notes." Mr. Berger's sentencing is scheduled for July, and Mr. Hillman assures us Justice's sentencing memo will lay out the facts and "make sure Mr. Berger explains what he did and why he did it." Meanwhile, conservatives don't do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left.'

Liberal logic - House co... (Below threshold)
jim:

Liberal logic - House convicts, Senate doesn't - so therefor reality never happened.

Don't you mean, the logic of a Democracy?

Since not being convicted is supposed to mean you're not guilty.

And stealing copies is OK. (Like to see you get that one past RIAA.)

Berger was fined $50,000 for taking out copies. So no one's saying that's okay.

The difference is, destroying copies doesn't destroy originals. So, saying Berger destroyed originals when he destroyed copies, is not accurate to reality.

Thanks Jim. I guess Jay ow... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Thanks Jim. I guess Jay owes us a retraction/correction and Clinton and Berger an apology.

Oh this one is easy J., the... (Below threshold)

Oh this one is easy J., there is one word that unifies all those seemingly irreoncilable inconsistencies: expendiency.

Loved your link Jim, especi... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Loved your link Jim, especially this part
and Mr. Hillman assures us Justice's sentencing memo will lay out the facts and "make sure Mr. Berger explains what he did and why he did it."

Yup, I remember when Mr. Berger explained what he did and why he did it.

Oh wait.....
He gave up his law license to avoid having to explain what he did and why. Hmmm, I'm beginning to think that maybe Mr. Hillman isn't being so honest with us.

Another bit of comedy from that article
Those documents, emphatically, without doubt--I reviewed them myself--don't have notations on them,"
He reviewed the documents that Mr. Berger destroyed? How? They were destroyed.

And here's another link for you from a year and a half later, when we knew more. You know, after much of the Clintonian obfuscation where you deny everything you're accused of. Until you get caught, then, you deny everything except what you got caught doing. Then, when you get caught for more you still deny everything, even the first thing you admitted, except for what you just got caught doing.
Then, a year later you deny everything again. Wash, rinse, screw everybody.

I'll helpfully quote the relevant parts
In September and October, Berger was able to sneak papers -- slight variations of a report titled "Millennium Alert After Action Review," which looked at U.S. vulnerabilities to terrorists, as well as the notes he took from other classified documents
Note "slight variations", so no, it wasn't just printed out copies of the same document.

And for those still trying to push "inadvertent"
On the evening of Oct. 2, 2003, former White House national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stashed highly classified documents he had taken from the National Archives beneath a construction trailer at the corner of Ninth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW so he could surreptitiously retrieve them later and take them to his office, according to a newly disclosed government investigation.
That's about as advertent as you can get.

He reviewed the document... (Below threshold)
Cpt. Obvious:

He reviewed the documents that Mr. Berger destroyed? How? They were destroyed.

They were copies.

Good ones, Jay. With that i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Good ones, Jay. With that in mind, I am trying to reconcile a few things in my head:

  • Bush and the Republicans say that we should not reward our enemies by talking to them, especially those with whom we disagree, but then they suddenly support talking to NoKo, Syria, and Iran.
  • Under the old rules, accusations of misconduct (Cunningham, Ney, Burns) or an indictment (Tom DeLay) were considered inadequate grounds for resignation, or even stepping down from a top leadership position. But under the new rules, the same does not seem to apply to Reid, Murtha, or Jefferson (who should not even be on committee, though it's a lower position than Majority Leader).
  • Also, it used to be OK to rehabilitate corrupt scumbags by giving them positions of power and authority, in hopes it will dissuade them from further corruption. At least that seems to be behind the status of Cunningham, Gibbons, and DeLay (engineered to remain Majority Leader by the Republicans, blocked only by outraged Democrats).
  • Scooter Libby did nothing wrong and deserves probation, dismissal, or a pardon for lying to federal investigators about a leak of covert intelligence, but Bill Clinton should be in prison for lying about a sexual affair.
  • And why isn't Richard Armitage in jail, too, for that matter? He's the one who leaked Plame's identity in the first place.
  • Outlawing "choice" is good when it comes to reproductive freedom or sexual orientation, but not even something one would consider when it comes to education, self-defense, or health insurance.

Somewhere, there has to be a Grand Unified Theory that reconciles all these apparently contradictory notions that seem to sum up the Republican platform, but I don't see any political Hawkings out there working on the question.
He reviewed the document... (Below threshold)
jim:

He reviewed the documents that Mr. Berger destroyed? How? They were destroyed.

Please go back and read the part where the documents that Mr. Berger looked at, were copies which were printed from a hard drive.

The archive staff printed out the documents. The only documents that Berger was seen looking at, were these documents which were printed out.

Follow?

Note "slight variations"... (Below threshold)
jim:

Note "slight variations", so no, it wasn't just printed out copies of the same document.

Good - that explains why he had five different COPIES of versions.

Thanks for explaining that.

Still, please note that they're copies which were printed from a hard drive.

Np, Barney. Just trying to ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Np, Barney. Just trying to keep things straight here.

If Berger didn't destroy an... (Below threshold)
scotty:

If Berger didn't destroy any original content, what the hell was the purpose of stealing them. Seems like a pretty big risk to take. Why did he do it?

Also, if originals were destroyed, how possibly could Hillman have even commented on it. He was merely commenting on those documents where copies were made.

Berger was given boxes of original documents on a few occasions. If he disapeared any of these documents, then there is no way to comment on what was there, right?

BarneyGRUBBLE:... (Below threshold)
marc:

BarneyGRUBBLE:

If he lied under oath then why was he acquitted in the Senate?

um... er they are politicians? They were just as tired as the rest of the country over months of the story on the front pages?

On January 17, President Clinton was deposed in the Jones lawsuit. He denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by her lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her.

So... who will now claim Clinton wasn't under oath while being deposed?

If Berger didn't destroy... (Below threshold)
jim:

If Berger didn't destroy any original content, what the hell was the purpose of stealing them. Seems like a pretty big risk to take. Why did he do it?

First, I'll point out that the main reason we KNOW that what Berger destroyed is copies with NO marginalia, is that his only known access to these copies was via printouts National Archives staf made for him, from hard drives.

So, as far as we know, it is a ****physical impossibility**** that he could have destroyed any originals of these documents.

As for why he would take copies, he has stated that he didn't think the documents were that sensitive, and so didn't "need" to be classified, and therefore he didn't need to pay attention to the rules. For this laziness and arrogance he was caught, convicted, and fined $50,000.

Berger was given boxes of o... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Berger was given boxes of original documents on a few occasions. If he disapeared any of these documents, then there is no way to comment on what was there, right? by scotty

Are you a complete idiot? This wasn't your local lending library. You just don't walk up to a shelf in the national archive and help yourself to what ever you want.

Marc, if you're referring t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Marc, if you're referring to the charge of perjury, then Clinton was correctly aquitted of that charge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/akakatext021399.htm

"In order for a lie under oath to amount to perjury -- as Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) explained on the floor of the Senate on February 12, 1999 -- it must be "material" to the underlying case. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that Clinton's deposition in the Monica Lewinsky case was immaterial to the sexual harassment suit that Paula Jones brought against Clinton."

But if you're referring to Clinton lying, then yes of course he lied. It was about his sex life, which is his business and not the nation's business; but still, he lied. Sure.

And lying is wrong, not good, and bad. On that we can agree.

Liberals are defending the ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Liberals are defending the liberal sewage. They are hypocritical liars until they demand Pelosi to resign for keeping jefferson on the committee. Now they are making excuses for Clinton and Berger. These are partisan liberal hacks who simply defend their sewage at any cost. Yet these same people can talk about ethis/morality/truth.

Also, if originals were ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Also, if originals were destroyed, how possibly could Hillman have even commented on it. He was merely commenting on those documents where copies were made.

This point was addressed at 5:03. To be even more clear, the only access to these documents was through the Archive staff, who printed out copies from a hard drive.

LAI, if you stuck with Pelo... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, if you stuck with Pelosi, you could have a point someday. We all want to see the Democrats fully live up to their promises.

But your information about Clinton and Berger is simply **wrong**, not accurate, and out of step with real-world facts. Correcting misinformation is not excusing anything, it's just trying to return to facts.

Jim, Using the Libb... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Using the Libby standard: he goes to jail for "lying under oath" not related to an original crime of an investigation. He is in executive position, so he must go to jail for it!

Now Clinton was found lying under oath in a civil proceeding and he was president. So the standard should be higher for him, right? Berger stealing classified information, and you are here trying to distract to make excuse for him?

Barney was proudly linking to a conservative blogger waging war on corrupt reps. And here you guys are defending Clinton/Berger hypocritically. The dishonesty is so obvious. I consider you guys are example of the liberal sewage until you guys can show better behavior than this. But I won't hold my breadth. Good luck with your libeal sew*ge.

Sure, except: perjury only ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sure, except: perjury only applies to statements under oath which are relevant to the case at hand.

The judge in the Paula Jones case ruled his testimony about Monica Lewinsky irrelevant. Therefore, he did not commit perjury.

Note that Perjury is a serious crime, but also a legal one with a legal definition. That's why the Judge ruled as she did, and why Clinton was acquited in the Senate.

Berger stealing classifi... (Below threshold)
jim:

Berger stealing classified information, and you are here trying to distract to make excuse for him?

I am not making any excuses for Berger. I am putting the actual, correct information down here.

Now, if you want to say that Berger should have had to more than pay a $50,000 fine for violating national security with his cavalier treatment of COPIES of secret documents, that's a different argument to make.

But to say that Berger stole and destroyed originals simply is not true.

If that's "liberal sewage" then so be it.

Jim, Simply more ex... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Simply more excuse. The Libby standard requires that Clinton at least be removed from office. And liberals should be demanding an INDEPENDENT prosecutor to investigate Berger crime. Instead you guys are here trying to make excuse.
Simply more examples of the liberal sewage. Thanks for admitting that you are happy with the liberal sewage run by your corrupt liberal leaders: Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, Clinton, Jefferson etc...
The dishonesty is so obvious here, Jim. Enjoy the liberal sewage. You make it so easy.

"# Scooter Libby is a trait... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"# Scooter Libby is a traitor and deserves even more than the 2.5 years in jail he's been sentenced to for misremembering conversations with journalists (whose own memories were proven equally shoddy), but Sandy Berger can steal and destroy vital documents relating to 9/11 without serving a day in jail" -- Jay Tea

"Misremembering? Is that some sort of Bush-word? In any case, Scooter Libby was convicted of lying under oath and obstructing justice by a unanimous jury hearing far, far more about the case than you ever will, Mr. Tea.

Unlike Scooter, who was found guilty of four felonies, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. If you have problems with Berger being charged only with a misdemeanor, than take up the matter with Mr. Bush and with his Justice Department.

"# And why isn't Richard Armitage in jail, too, for that matter?" -- Jay Tea

And why isn't Karl Rove in jail, as he leaked to Matt Cooper? And why isn't Ari Fleischer in jail, as he leaked to Dick Gregory? Because Fitz believed that he couldn't prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Armitage, Rove, and Fleischer KNEW Valerie Plame Wilson was undercover when they outed her, and in order to get a conviction, the particular law in question requires them to have known. It's a simple matter, conservatives, I don't know why you have so much difficulty with it.

If you have problems with B... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

If you have problems with Berger being charged only with a misdemeanor, than take up the matter with Mr. Bush and with his Justice Department.
------------------------------------------------
And liberals will defend the liberal sewage at any cost: Berger, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Jefferson. Thanks for admitting that liberals don't care about ethics/morality. Liberals are happy to swim in the liberal sewage as long as they can win election.

The Libby standard requi... (Below threshold)
jim:

The Libby standard requires that Clinton at least be removed from office.

uh,
a) Clinton already is out of office.
b) the only way for Clinton to be removed from office, was impeachment.
c) the Senate decided not to impeach Clinton.

So, what's your problem?

When are you guys going to stop kicking Clinton? He's out of office for 6 years now. Will it be when he's been out of office for 20 years? Or just never?

And liberals should be demanding an INDEPENDENT prosecutor to investigate Berger crime.

OK, I'll just point out here once again that Berger was already investigated, convicted and charged.

Do you think Berger should be prosecuted and charged for the same stuff again?

Pardon, in above: the proce... (Below threshold)
jim:

Pardon, in above: the process of bringing a President to trial is impeachment. Of course, teh House impeaches a President; the Senate chose to aquit Clinton.

Jim, Just like to po... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Just like to point out your hypocrisy. Now current example. Where is the liberal's demand that Jefferson to be removed from office? Where is the demand that Pelosi to step down for tolerating Jefferson?
Clinton is another example of the liberal dishonesty: liberals would defend their corrupt leader as long as they can retain power. Basically that is your arg. I don't know who keeps bringing up Karl Rove using your standard? The point is liberals didn't demand an investigation into Berger 's serious crime. Of course, he is your guy, so you wouldn't do. Just contrast that to Barney 's proud link to a conservative waging war on corrupt Rep.

Again, I have shown you clear examples of the liberal sewage: Pelosi, Clinton (Hillary), Reid, Jefferson etc... When are you going to wage war against them?

Pardon, in above: the proce... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Pardon, in above: the process of bringing a President to trial is impeachment. Of course, teh House impeaches a President; the Senate chose to aquit Clinton.
------------------------------------------------
Thanks for bring up the dishonesty of liberals again. So the liberal dems in the Senate was too dishonest to convict Clinton. That 's a given. The Rep leadership was too coward to move forward with the trial. But Clinton was found lying under oath in the courts. The Senate finding simply said that it does not rise to the level of impeachable offense. So using Libby 's standard, Clinton should have been removed from office at least. And you are too dishonest to acknowledge even that.

Your spinning cannot hide the fact that you are defending the liberal sewage at any cost.

Where is the liberal's d... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Where is the liberal's demand that Jefferson to be removed from office?

Every liberal I've seen posting on these pages has said that Jefferson should resign. Can you not read, or are you really just that dumb?

Every liberal I've seen pos... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Every liberal I've seen posting on these pages has said that Jefferson should resign.
----------------------------------------
Using your stupid standard, where on this thread have liberals demanded that Jefferson resign? Even it is this late, that I cannot find it on this thread. Where was the loud demand before the indictment? Where is the demand for Pelosi to resign as well? Are you drinking too much of the liberal sewage? If you are not too dumb then you are too dishonest. Sorry forgot that you are the founder of the Brian 's lying club.

Let's go over the reality.<... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Let's go over the reality.

Employees assumed Berger was stealing documents. Assumed he was doing so. So, they eventually start numbering one specific document.

He steals it.

They replace it.

He steals it again.

They replace it yet again.

He steals it yet again.

We have NO idea what he stole initially to cause suspicion. He has shown no problem with stealing classified material, so it's not unreasonable to suspect what he did.

You might want to ask the Inspector General of the Archives Paul Brachfeld.

Berger is given a deal with the DOJ to plead guilty to lesser charges. Later, it turns out he lied, extensively, as to what he did. He went from unintentionally taking documents to hiding them in a construction site and retrieving them later.

The Archives staff attempted sting (the numbering of pages) was laughable.

Berger lied about what he did. That is a fact. He stole documents. That is a fact. He stole the same document repeatedly. That is a fact as well. Security protocols were violated repeatedly on Berger's behalf. That, too, is a fact.
-=Mike

Lovie, you provided a lot o... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Lovie, you provided a lot of entertainment today. Stay off your Meds and keep up the good work.

The only source of what doc... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

The only source of what documents were destroyed is from Berger himself.

And this account is what the lefties use to defend him? Wow. Just wow.

I would like an answer to t... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I would like an answer to this from either Jim or Barney if he can use his magnificent powers of deduction to deduce things. The 9/11 Commission was meeting or about to meet. We all know what they were investigating. You please explain why a former National Security Advisor would go to the national archieves at this time, secret document in his pants, socks and God knows were else, hid them at the construction site, retrieve them later. Take them home and destroy them, if they were just fucking copies that anyone could view? Knowing that the former National Security Advisor was a lawyer and had to know his activities, if caught, could cost him his freedome for a very long time, unless someone like Chuck Schumer had influence in the Justice dempartment, to guarantee leniency. Must have been pretty important stuff Berger risked his freedom to destroy. Or does that escape you Barney?

Using your stupid standa... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Using your stupid standard, where on this thread have liberals demanded that Jefferson resign? Even it is this late, that I cannot find it on this thread.

I didn't say "on this thread", moron. What's the matter, is one day of posting all your brain can handle?

Where was the loud demand before the indictment?

Yes, where indeed?

He's a crook and he should be in jail. Posted by: Paul Hamilton at June 4, 2007 03:11 PM


I'm a Democrat, look at my post. I think anyone involved in public corruption should not only be forced out of office and indicted but should commit ritual suicide, regardless of party. I won't defend Feinstein or Jefferson.
Posted by: MikeBC at April 27, 2007 04:30 PM

Jefferson should be prosecuted.
Posted by: Publicus at March 22, 2007 12:58 PM

I said jefferson was an asshat long ago. Yes, he's a friggin' embarrassment to Democrats and liberals, absolutely.
Posted by: Lee at January 5, 2007 10:48 PM

I've already said I think he's guilty.
Posted by: Lee at December 10, 2006 04:12 PM

Several liberal posters, including myself, have criticized Jefferson, now multiple times. And many liberal blogs had been pulling for his opponent to defeat him. And those same blogs are now surprised and dismayed at his win, even suggesting he'll be the "first member indicted in the next Congress".
So get off your high horse, coming from the only party to have had a convicted felon as a sitting congressman.
Posted by: Brian at December 10, 2006 07:52 PM

Hey idiot - no one here is defending this guy Jefferson! Not a single left-leaning person is defending him
Posted by: Fordrill at December 12, 2006 09:12 AM

Is going back seven months good enough for you? And that's just from a cursory glance at posts that mention Jefferson, without even delving into the comments of posts that don't. You can go find the rest; I don't have any more time to read to you.

As someone said, if you are not too dumb then you are too dishonest.

Moron.

Has any conservative beside... (Below threshold)

Has any conservative besides me noticed that the lefties' primary defense has been something you normally hear in elementary school playgrounds?

"But he did it too!"

Another fascinating insight into the lefty psyche.

Using your stupid standard,... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Using your stupid standard, where on this thread have liberals demanded that Jefferson resign? Even it is this late, that I cannot find it on this thread.

I didn't say "on this thread", moron. What's the matter, is one day of posting all your brain can handle?

Where was the loud demand before the indictment?
-------------------------------------------------
Brian,
You have your browny point for posting the cheap rhetoric from your fellow travellers. This is after the fact was brought up to you guys. Again you are too dumb or too dishonest (using your standard now). I intentionally use this word in my post to see how dumb or dishonest you are and you do not fail

Using your stupid standard, where on this thread have liberals demanded that Jefferson resign? Even it is this late, that I cannot find it on this thread.

Where on this thread, Brian? This is your typical dishonest tactic to distract and you didn't know it?

BTW, you were the loudest to demand Hastert resignation. When are you going to wage war against Pelosi to demand her resignation?

Here is another example of the dishonesty of your fellow traveler, Barney on this thread

Clinton lied to the American people and not under oath. Jefferson has been removed from his committee and will probably resign in the next day or two. Armitage should be in prison (another scumbag neo-con member of the Bush administration).

Armitage is a scumbag and should be in prison even though he hasn't been indicted yet. Where is the condemnation of Jefferson (probably the most corrupt congressman!) in the same sentence.

Brian, you are too dishonest and has no hint of shame of your liberal sewage.


You have your browny poi... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You have your browny point for posting the cheap rhetoric from your fellow travellers.

In other words, you're sorry for moronically posting something that you knew to be false, and you're embarrassed that I so easily smacked you down with it. Apology accepted.

Where on this thread, Brian? This is your typical dishonest tactic to distract and you didn't know it?

You didn't ask where on this thread, and I didn't say it was in this thread. What's the matter, once you got smacked down hard for being a lying moron you need to go invent new restrictions after the fact that didn't exist before? You're the dishonest one. And you make it so obvious.

You didn't ask where on thi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You didn't ask where on this thread
---------------------------------------
Here it is Brian. So do you think Pelosi should resign? Just be honest for once.

Using your stupid standard, where on this thread have liberals demanded that Jefferson resign? Even it is this late, that I cannot find it on this thread.

Again BrianHere is a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Again Brian
Here is another example of the dishonesty of your fellow traveler, Barney on this thread. Where is the condemnation of Jefferson as a scumbag and he should go to jail? Barney didn't even dare to say he should go to jail here. I am reading this thread and this is what I am interested in.

Clinton lied to the American people and not under oath. Jefferson has been removed from his committee and will probably resign in the next day or two. Armitage should be in prison (another scumbag neo-con member of the Bush administration).

>You didn't ask where on... (Below threshold)
Brian:

>You didn't ask where on this thread
---------------------------------------
Here it is Brian.

Hey, schmuck, that was after I called you on being dumb for asking "Where is the liberal's demand that Jefferson to be removed from office?" in this post. You just added that "in this thread" afterwards, and now you're lying about it. I'd say "typical conservative sewage", but your type of dishonest sewage goes far beyond that of even the most vile conservatives.

OK, it is getting late. I w... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

OK, it is getting late. I will bookmark this thread as an example of how the liberal sewage operates.

Here is another example ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Here is another example of the dishonesty of your fellow traveler, Barney on this thread. Where is the condemnation of Jefferson as a scumbag and he should go to jail?

LOL! He's dishonest for not saying something?!

Now I see your problem. You simply don't understand what words mean.

Brian, Your dishone... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
Your dishonesty is so obvious. I simply use your same standard of asking question. You are either too dumb to read my question or simply want to spin. I am using your very own standard and you say that it is smuck. Thank you for admitting that your own standard is dishonest.

AGain, do you think that Pelosi should resign? That 's the same question I have been asking in this thread. And you try to distract from it by your cheap dishonest tactic. You condemn your own tactic, Brian.

You simply don't understand... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You simply don't understand what words mean.
---------------------------------------------
You condemned your own reading comprehension. I asked where in this thread and you didn't even understand my question. You are only intested in lying. In the same sentence here and you don't see the hyprocrical dishonesty here. You are either too dumb or too dishonest.

Clinton lied to the American people and not under oath. Jefferson has been removed from his committee and will probably resign in the next day or two. Armitage should be in prison (another scumbag neo-con member of the Bush administration).

No, Brian doesn't think Pel... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

No, Brian doesn't think Pelsoi should resign. She is a D. D's don't resign. Having no honor or honesty is the mark of the D's. Check out Chuck Schumers dealing with the Justice department to subvert the Bush administration. I would love to see the e-mail traffic between this cowardly traitor and McNulty. This is what happens when scum like Clinton get to appoint and hire people to work in government. Their loyalty is not to the Country they serve but to a political ideal. They should be made to suffer for their transgressions. Not likely to happen though.

<a href="http://www.opinion... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

Forgive me if this was already quoted or linked, but I think I read all the comments above and didn't see it. The following is from a Wall Street Journal piece by John Fund. Yeah, it is an editorial type piece, but he quotes the archives official who gave Berger the documents.

Here is the quote:

"Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger's assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, even though on three of his four visits there he had access to original working papers of the National Security Council for which no adequate inventory exists. Nancy Smith, the archives official who provided the materials to Mr. Berger, said that she would "never know what if any original documents were missing." We have only Mr. Berger's word that he didn't take anything else. The Justice Department secured his agreement to take a polygraph on the matter, but never followed through and administered it."

Sorry Barney, but your demand for a court ruling saying that Berger took documents doesn't exist since Berger plead guilty to keep from going to a trial where more might have been revealed. The item quoted in an earlier comment above saying the prosecutor said Berger didn't take originals with marginalia jibes with Fund's piece which says the prosecutors accepted "Berger's assurance". I don't care if you accept it or not, but I used to work at a document depository with documents that were in FBI custody and due to the volume of documents we had there, some were allowed to be reviewed without first being Bates stamped or otherwise numbered. We numbered the documents that were requested to be copied. That stinks, but it is sometimes the case. I would have thought that would not be the case with classified docs, but it appears, according to at least one Archive official that it was."

One more quote from that sa... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

One more quote from that same WSJ article linked in my previous comment:

"After archives staff became suspicious of Mr. Berger during his third visit, they numbered some of the documents he looked at. After he left, they reviewed the documents and noted that No. 217 was missing. The next time he came, the staff gave him another copy of 217 with the comment that it had been inadvertently not made available to him during his previous visit. Mr. Berger appropriated the same document again."

Note that the docs were only numbered after the third visit when they became suspicious. Hence the statement in my previous comment from the archive official who says she wouldn't know what if any original documents were missing.

If you don't believe it, call her a liar, not me. I am just cut and pasting the quote.

MikeSC, that Berger stole C... (Below threshold)
jim:

MikeSC, that Berger stole COPIES of documents is not disputed. He clearly did it.

The only fact that is repeatedly missed, is that the ONLY documents Berger is accused of removing and destroying are COPIES, and the only known contact he had with any documents was with COPIES.

And we don't only have his word for this - these are the full results of the full investigation into this matter.

So, feel free to go ahead and rail on about how terrible Berger is. Just be aware that the only thing we know is that Berger took and later destroyed COPIES. Printed from a hard drive. By Archive Staff. Hence their ability to number them. OK?

I just want people to follow the known facts. That's all I want.

LoveAmerica Immigrant, you ... (Below threshold)
jim:

LoveAmerica Immigrant, you have changed the subject. Having had the Clinton-perjury and Berger-destroyed-originals arguments demolished, you switched to "why aren't you liberals against Jefferson?" argument.

Guess what? I don't like Jefferson, he should resign, and Pelosi shouldn't give him any power.

How's that?

Now please admit you were wrong re: Berger and Clinton, and we can all move forward.

Lorie, I amend my statement... (Below threshold)
jim:

Lorie, I amend my statement: it appears that Berger was at some point in the same room with originals, as you quote. So, it is theoretically possible that if:

a) IF the boxes contained just a few docuementsof something vitally embarassing to Bill Clinton, that didn't exist anywhere else

b) IF Berger could find those documents when left alone during a few hours, on one single day, among many thousands of uninventoried documents in God knows how many boxes

c) IF Berger felt like risking jail and destroying the historical record

d) IF Berger could be left alone long enough to take out those isolated documents

e) And IF Berger could smuggled these few documents back out, to destroy later, because he couldn't do it then and there

- then it may have happened.

That's a reach for me, but believe it if you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Convicted_of_mishandling_classified_terror_documents

"In January 2007, departing Republican staff of The United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report titled Sandy Berger's Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions. It states that the FBI or the Department of Justice never questioned Berger about two earlier visits he made on May 30, 2002 and July 18, 2003,...and speculates that, had Berger previously been entirely successful in actions at which he was later caught, "nobody would know they were gone." It also contains the FBI's statement as to why they concluded there was no exposure on those dates: "Berger was under constant supervision"

So, believe what you like; just know that the only evidence we have, is that Berger destroyed some copies.

Jim: two points:Bi... (Below threshold)

Jim: two points:

Bill Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a federal deposition and then lied. Spin all you want, lie all you want, that is an indisputable fact. And the only reason those questions were allowed was because of the sexual harassment law he himself had signed, making his conduct with other subordinates germane to the matter.

Secondly, you're right we'll never know definitively just what Berger stole from the archives because he's done everything he can to avoid having to explain it. He's accepted punishment after punishment (fines, probation, loss of clearance, disbarment) to avoid having to testify under oath just what he did. (Of course, under your standard, it seems, he could lie about it and get away with it anyway, but he doesn't seem to want to take that chance.) The only possibility we'll ever get the truth is to compel him to testify under a grant of immunity, coupled with a threat of Contempt (either of court or Congress) if he doesn't comply -- and I don't see either happening. Double jeopardy and a lack of accomplices makes the court unlikely, and the current political makeup of Congress casts doubt on that option.

J.

Are historians going to bel... (Below threshold)
kim:

Are historians going to believe the archivists or this pitiful prosecutor?

There is plenty of documentation of the pusillanimity of Clinton's national security apparatus. The Berger escapade simply documents that circle's guilty conscience.

Read it and weep. You know it's true.
===========================

Jim: I asked a few serious... (Below threshold)
scotty:

Jim: I asked a few serious questions and you came back with a strong defense using ALL CAPS and other ****highlights***. See:

First, I'll point out that the main reason we KNOW that what Berger destroyed is copies with NO marginalia, is that his only known access to these copies was via printouts National Archives staf made for him, from hard drives.

So, as far as we know, it is a ****physical impossibility**** that he could have destroyed any originals of these documents.

Now, I was trying to point out that your argument that Burger didn't have access to originals kinda fails the smell test. But you just simply regurgitated that same ol' saw. "He only had copies" blah blah blah.

Well, later Lorie quotes Fund and you, to your credit, admit that there may be a possibility that he had access to originals. To your discredit however you wouldn't quite give up on the argument and toward the end of you response to Lorie you kinda spit out the "only copies" crap, citing of all things Wikipedia (feeble).

Ok, now I am left with a dilemma. Do I think of you as a reasonable guy who can be swayed by evidence; or, does the fact that you spent several hours in rapacious argument (using the very silly "only copies" defense to explain why a grown man would shove documents in his socks and underpants), mean that you have a serious character flaw and should consider all post with your name as suspect. I mean it really seems like you were willing to devote half a day to arguing, insulting others, and searching internet sources to support your version of events while ignoring all others. And all this is predicated on your willingness to dismiss the very plausible idea that Berger's bizarre actions indicate that he was destroying original evidence. All other explanations beg reason. Why hide the "copies" under the shed to come back later to just destroy them. Destroying "copies" does not eliminate evidence; so, what reasonable (or rational) reason is there to explain it. I submit there are none except that they were originals.

Sorry, but at this point, Jim, your actions have left me with a serious suspicion that you were willing to argue ad nauseum to build this "only copies" house of cards and that puts you in the second version of the above dilemma. From this point on, I shall regard all of your posts a suspect. I shall ignore your voluminous sourcing as citing only biased sources. I shall believe that you are willing to ignore facts and argue tenaciously to support a false premise. In short, Jim, I shall think of you as: Jim The Moonbat that posts at Wizbang. Good day Sir.

Part of the post above shou... (Below threshold)
scotty:

Part of the post above should have been included in the block quote by Jim the Moonbat:

So, as far as we know, it is a ****physical impossibility**** that he could have destroyed any originals of these documents.
NIcely done, Brian. Thanks ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

NIcely done, Brian. Thanks for the hard work it took to go back and prove the liars are lying again!

Lee is another example of t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee is another example of the liberal sewage. He doesn't fail to make sure that he joins with other well known liars here. Brian has been proven a dishonest liar.

Lee, do you think Pelosi should resign? Or you are just another member of the Brian 's club?

"Somewhere, there has to... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Somewhere, there has to be a Grand Unified Theory that reconciles all these apparently contradictory notions that seem to sum up the Democratic platform"

It's quite simple Jay. Reality is very unkind to the leftists so they simply fabricate their own "reality" that fits their religious beliefs and allows them to claim that their religious beliefs are actually fact.

Barney, Brian, and Jim have done an excelelnt job of demonstrating that on this thread.

Jim, Scotty has demolished ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim, Scotty has demolished your silly dishonest argument to change the subject. So do you think stealing classified information is a serious crime given Berger was a national security advisor?

Question again: do you think Pelosi should resign? Please answer yes or no (I am using your own standard now). We know the answer from the founder of Brian's club.

Ok, now I am left with a... (Below threshold)
jim:

Ok, now I am left with a dilemma. Do I think of you as a reasonable guy who can be swayed by evidence; or, does the fact that you spent several hours in rapacious argument (using the very silly "only copies" defense to explain why a grown man would shove documents in his socks and underpants), mean that you have a serious character flaw and should consider all post with your name as suspect.

Well, that's up to you, isn't it?

I'll point out that the incident you're referring to, covers the time when he only had access to copies. And I'll point out that's the evidence.

The rest of Lorie's argument, is things that Berger could have been physically able to do. Not that things that he did, said he would do, that others said he would do, in short, nothing that there's actual evidence for.

I mean it really seems like you were willing to devote half a day to arguing,

Yes, arguing the facts and evidence of the case - because many of you here still seem to confuse copies with originals, and think that he was caught or suspected by investigators of destroying originals with marginalia.

And I have spent so much time here, because I have to tell and tell and tell this again before you guys seem to get it, and we finally get to a point where we dont' evidence - which is what Berger might have theoretically done.

As for the use of caps, I start using them when I feel people aren't getting an important distinction - for instance, of the difference between copies and originals.

insulting others,

Scotty, please find ***one single*** instance here where I insulted anybody.

Otherwise, retract this statment.

I try very hard to not stoop to insults at all, and try my best to deal in logic and evidence.

and searching internet sources to support your version of events while ignoring all others.

I search for the facts. It just so happens that the facts support my argument. Sorry I don't look up more supposition without evidence. But feel free to do your own research, and prove me wrong.


And all this is predicated on your willingness to dismiss the very plausible idea that Berger's bizarre actions indicate that he was destroying original evidence.

a) Plausible to **you**, because you probably hate Clinton and thus hate Berger.

b) plausible ideas are not enough to condemn anybody. You need at least some evidence.

Supposition and suspicion are not evidence. If they were, Bush and Cheney would already be out of office. Are you willing to give automatic credence to all my suspicions about them? I'd bet no. So, it would seem that the best way to go is with accusations that at least have evidence behind them.

Why hide the "copies" un... (Below threshold)
jim:

Why hide the "copies" under the shed to come back later to just destroy them. Destroying "copies" does not eliminate evidence; so, what reasonable (or rational) reason is there to explain it. I submit there are none except that they were originals.

OMFG.

This right here is why I capitalize things, Scotty. Because you guys just resist straight-up facts, and i have to circle back and repeat something again. So I capitalize it, in the hopes that the particular point will be driven home again that time.

One more time -

The only things that Berger were caught taking, were copies.

Do you understand that? Please say that you do.

Further, as far as I can see, the only documents that he had access to, on that day, were copies. Someone correct me, but that's all I've been able to find.

Do you understand this? Copies. Which were printed out for him.

He left the copies outside, to retrieve them later.

When he realized he was being suspected of stealing copies - not originals, but copies - he destroyed the copies so there would be no evidence he had broken the law against removing copies.

Are we all clear now?

From this point on, I shall regard all of your posts a suspect.

Oh, you weren't already?

I shall ignore your voluminous sourcing as citing only biased sources.

What are you talking about? You've already been ignoring my sourcing. IF you weren't, you would understand the difference between originals and copies.

I shall believe that you are willing to ignore facts and argue tenaciously to support a false premise.

Sure. The premise must be false because you don't believe it; and the facts must be wrong because they support the premise.

Since Berger was prosecuted by the Bush administration and given his $50,000 fine, but not executed for treason, you must now believe in a vast Left *and* Right-wing conspiracy involving the Bush administration itself, in order for this to work for you.

But please, enjoy your belief system. Just dont' think it's based on facts or reason. And a good day to you.

Jim, Scotty has demolish... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, Scotty has demolished your silly dishonest argument to change the subject.

Read my previous post, LAI.

So do you think stealing classified information is a serious crime given Berger was a national security advisor?

OMFG, again.

I think misdemeanor unauthorized removal of copies is a serious enough crime for Berger to have to pay $50,000.

Why, do you think perjury and obstruction of justice under oath in a court of law is a serious crime?

Question again: do you t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Question again: do you think Pelosi should resign? Please answer yes or no (I am using your own standard now). We know the answer from the founder of Brian's club.

Okay, I'll play.

Right now, no, Pelosi should not resign.

My reason: She wasn't covering up for Jefferson, like Hastert was for Foley. She has no prior knowledge of his crimes, and in no way tried to hush them over, and put Jefferson in a position to commit more of them.

Now, I'd prefer it if Pelosi would remove Jefferson from important committees. But Jefferson is not currently endangering children, so to me it's not a resignation-level offence.

Now, you answer yes or no:
Do you think Gonzalez should resign, or just be fired?

It seems quite clear he's perjured himself before Congress at least twice, and at best he's so completely incompetent that he doens't know what's going on in his own office and can't be straight who or where he gets what orders from or to.

Bill Clinton swore to te... (Below threshold)
jim:

Bill Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a federal deposition and then lied.

Jay Tea, please find one place where I said that Bill Clinton **didn't** lie.

Spin all you want, lie all you want, that is an indisputable fact. And the only reason those questions were allowed was because of the sexual harassment law he himself had signed, making his conduct with other subordinates germane to the matter.

The judge disagreed with you. And the Senate agreed with the judge. Therefore, they win. And therefore, no perjury.

Sorry you don't like it, but that's the facts and that's reality.

Secondly, you're right we'll never know definitively just what Berger stole from the archives because he's done everything he can to avoid having to explain it.

Okay, thank you.

Whew.

Oh, one clarification - we'll never know just what **if anything** else Berger stole, besides copies.

And you're right, he has avoided further testimony about this, which I can understand you seeing as suspicious. If I already suspected Berger, I could see this as being pretty smelly.

But we don't know. Therefore to compare what you ***suspect*** Berger of doing to what Libby was **convicted of*** doing, is to make a false comparison.

And ditto for the comparison of Clinton's lie about sex, and LIbby's perjury and obstruction of justice in a case involving national security.

Why, do you think perjury a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Why, do you think perjury and obstruction of justice under oath in a court of law is a serious crime?
-------------------------------------------------
Yes, Libby may go to jail for it. So Clinton should go to jail as well? Can we agree?


Right now, no, Pelosi should not resign.
My reason: She wasn't covering up for Jefferson, like Hastert was for Foley. She has no prior knowledge of his crimes, and in no way tried to hush them over, and put Jefferson in a position to commit more of them.
Now, I'd prefer it if Pelosi would remove Jefferson from important committees. But Jefferson is not currently endangering children, so to me it's not a resignation-level offence.
-------------------------------------------------
You repudiated yourself here. She knew of Jefferson stashing cash in the freezer already. And she still put him on important committee. That 's not cover-up? So liberals only wait for their leaders to be convicted before asking them to resign? That 's why you supported Clinton 's perjury and obstruction of justice?


Now, you answer yes or no:
Do you think Gonzalez should resign, or just be fired?

It seems quite clear he's perjured himself before Congress at least twice, and at best he's so completely incompetent that he doens't know what's going on in his own office and can't be straight who or where he gets what orders from or to.
-------------------------------------------------
Pelosi was lying when she exempted her own company in SF from the minimum wage. She lied about it afterwards. So I will agree that Gonzalez should resign if you agree that Pelosi should resign? I am using the same standard.

Jim, Scotty has demolished your silly dishonest argument to change the subject.
Read my previous post, LAI.
------------------------------------------------
He was trying to STEAL classified information, Jim. As a national security advisor, not like a little partisan hack. Lorie post decimated your little point already and you are still trying to spin. As a national security advisor for Clinton and he didn't know the security requirments. This is beyond parody.


Yes, Libby may go to jai... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yes, Libby may go to jail for it. So Clinton should go to jail as well? Can we agree?

No, because Clinton was aquited of perjury.

You repudiated yourself here. She knew of Jefferson stashing cash in the freezer already.

No, she did not cover up Jefferson's criminal activity. She in no way impeded any investigation, and as far as we know she in no way aided Jefferson to keep doing it. And those are all things that Hastert did for Foley.

And she still put him on important committee. That 's not cover-up?

No, it's not. Cover-up is taking facts that no one outside of your circle knows, and keeping them secret. You know this.

I wish that she had not put Jefferson on that committee, but as putting Jefferson on that committe did not actively endanger children, it's not to the level of resignation for me.

So liberals only wait for their leaders to be convicted before asking them to resign?

I'm already calling for Jefferson to resign.

Why, conservatives only wait for leaders to be convicted before they resign?

[Cough]Alberto Gonzalez[/cough]

That's why you supported Clinton 's perjury and obstruction of justice?

I'll tell you what - since Clinton wasn't convicted, and you still want him in jail so bad, how's this:

I'll agree that he can go to jail for clearly lying, even though he wasn't convicted of perjury, if we can apply the same standard to all members of the Bush Administration, from Alberto Gonzalez up.

Deal?

LAI, now you're accusing Pe... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, now you're accusing Pelosi of something else involving minimum wages or something, that wasn't part of our previous discussion.

If we're really going to continue this, why don't you list all the reasons why you think Pelosi lied and should resign for lying.

Methinks you protesteth ove... (Below threshold)
kim:

Methinks you protesteth overly much. Scotty's right about your 'copies' argument. And then you fall back on yammering again that he was only got caught taking 'copies'. What about before he was caught? Huh?

sophist. spits.
==========

The latest idea circulating... (Below threshold)
kim:

The latest idea circulating the sphere has Bush commuting Libby's sentence to one like Berger's. That would still allow the appeals process to go forward.
====================

He was trying to STEAL c... (Below threshold)
jim:

He was trying to STEAL classified information, Jim.

No, LAI, you're simply wrong.

Just wrong.

a) berger was caught removing copies. This is considered a misdemeanor. For this he was caught and fined.

Do you understand what copies are? Please say you do.

b) Berger was not in office when he did this. You must understand that.

As a national security advisor for Clinton and he didn't know the security requirments.

LAI, you are inventing points which I am not making.

Berger clearly knew the guidelines against removing ****copies****, and clearly tried to circumvent them. For this he was caught and fined.

Jeez.

And then you fall back o... (Below threshold)
jim:

And then you fall back on yammering again that he was only got caught taking 'copies'. What about before he was caught? Huh?

Well, before he was caught taking copies, he was caught taking....nothing.

No, because Clinton was aqu... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

No, because Clinton was aquited of perjury.
--------------------------------------------
This is a lie. He was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the court of law. His law license was suspended. He was simply acquitted of an impeachable offense.
Using Libby 's standard, he should have been removed from office at least (if not going to jail). Let 's be honest about that.


You repudiated yourself here. She knew of Jefferson stashing cash in the freezer already.

No, she did not cover up Jefferson's criminal activity. She in no way impeded any investigation, and as far as we know she in no way aided Jefferson to keep doing it. And those are all things that Hastert did for Foley.
-------------------------------------------------
You simply cannot be honest. Jefferson has been found stashing cash in his freezer. She covered up for him by moving him from one important committee to another. Jefferson is probably the most corrupt congression and you are still trying to spin. Foley was forced from office due to a huge pressure from the conservative base. Knowing Jefferson 's crime already, no pressure was exerted to force him from office (not even from a committee) and you are still trying to defend Pelosi. Using Foley 's standard, Barney is still in office. So much for your concern about children!

So liberals only wait for their leaders to be convicted before asking them to resign?
I'm already calling for Jefferson to resign.
-----------------------------------------------
You don't call for Pelosi to resign yet! Maybe I missed it. Calling for Jefferson to resign is a moot point now! He is already convicted!


I'll tell you what - since Clinton wasn't convicted,
-------------------------------------------
He was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the court of law. Stop hiding behind the dishonest Dems in the Senate.


Why, conservatives only wait for leaders to be convicted before they resign?
------------------------------------------------
Has Foley been convicted yet? Why Barney is still around?


AT least now you agree that as a national security advisor, Berger should have know security requirements?


Pelosi was lying when sh... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Pelosi was lying when she exempted her own company in SF from the minimum wage. She lied about it afterwards.

LOL! You're still squawking about something that was proven to be a Republican lie 5 months ago! You really are pathetic. And a proven liar.

LAI, you are inventi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:


LAI, you are inventing points which I am not making.
Berger clearly knew the guidelines against removing ****copies****, and clearly tried to circumvent them. For this he was caught and fined.
-------------------------------------------------
As a national security advisor and he was trying to steal classified information and you are still trying to argue about copies? These are not classified information? Do you really know what you are talking about.


Brian, you simply cannot st... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian, you simply cannot stop lying and defending the liberal sewage: trying to excuse a company in her own city from the minimum wage. I bet you this company is not in the list of her contributors. So much for the most ethical congress!

This is a lie. He was co... (Below threshold)
jim:

This is a lie. He was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the court of law.

No, he was not.

I just did a search for it, and found nothing that said he was.

Please find a source that says Clinton **was** convicted of perjury in a court of law. Otherwise, please correct your statement.

His law license was suspended.

State bar associations can suspend law licenses for any reasons they see fit. This is quite separate from a conviction of perjury.

Please get your facts straight.

You simply cannot be hon... (Below threshold)
jim:

You simply cannot be honest.

Why? because otherwise, you might be wrong?

Jefferson has been found stashing cash in his freezer. She covered up for him by moving him from one important committee to another.

Please explain how Pelosi moving Jefferson onto different committees, covered up the fact that cash was found in Jefferson's freezer.

AT least now you agree t... (Below threshold)
jim:

AT least now you agree that as a national security advisor, Berger should have know security requirements?

LAI, I never said Berger **did not** know security requirements.

From the beginning, it has been my stance that Berger knew exactly what he was doing when he took copies with him out of the archives.

Jim I know you will... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim
I know you will do the gymnastic dance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." [7]

This is a lie. He was co... (Below threshold)
Wikipedia:

This is a lie. He was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the court of law.

Posted by: LoveAmerica Immigrant at June 7, 2007 03:56 PM

I know you will do the gymnastic dance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Posted by: LoveAmerica Immigrant at June 7, 2007 04:22 PM

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ."

- Full Wikipedia entry text

Please explain how Pelosi m... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Please explain how Pelosi moving Jefferson onto different committees, covered up the fact that cash was found in Jefferson's freezer.
-----------------------------------------------
Jim, you are too dishonest here. Pelosi KNEW that Jefferson may have committed a serious crime already. She knew that he stashed cash in a freezer already. Yet she was trying to cover up for him by moving him from one committee to another. The right thing is to boot him from the committee and had the ethics committe to boot him out of congress. She was willing to tolerate corruption in her midst. So she was lying when she ran on a campaign of ethics.

LAI, I never said Berger **... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, I never said Berger **did not** know security requirements.

From the beginning, it has been my stance that Berger knew exactly what he was doing when he took copies with him out of the archives.
-------------------------------------------------
And what he was stealing was classified information. He was a national security advisor under Clinton. If he knew exactly what he was doing, then he was a crook. Clinton chose a crook to be the national security advisor. Using Libby 's standard again, Berger should go to jail since he had access to these classified information because of his privileged position as a former national security advisor. You are simply trying to minimize the crime (dishonestly unfortunately).

Regarding Clinton's January... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." [7]
-------------------------------------------------
Clinton was intentionally lying under oath in the court of law as the president. Using Libby standard, should he be at least removed from office if the dems were honest?

It simply pointed out that the liberals/dems were not honest.

Jim, you are too dishone... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, you are too dishonest here.

Oh, please. If you can't be clear and don't want to actually say what you're arguing, don't blame that on me. Take responsibility for yourself.

Pelosi KNEW that Jefferson may have committed a serious crime already. She knew that he stashed cash in a freezer already.

OK, thank you for acknowledging this.

Yet she was trying to cover up for him by moving him from one committee to another.

How does that cover up for him? You still aren't clear.

The right thing is to boot him from the committee and had the ethics committe to boot him out of congress.

Sure, that would be the best of many possible options. She isn't doing that right now.

She was willing to tolerate corruption in her midst. So she was lying when she ran on a campaign of ethics.

OK, there's where you go over the cliff.

She was **not** tolerating corruption here. She had no knowledge of the corruption, did nothing to help it, impeded no investigations, influenced no witnesses, kept nothing quiet.

What she is doing is, not coming down as hard as you like, on a Democrat who is under indictment.

This does not make her "lying" about ethics.

And what he was stealing... (Below threshold)
jim:

And what he was stealing was classified information.

"Stealing" implies taking something which can't be replaced. Berger took copies, and Berger was convicted for taking copies without authorization.

So Berger was not convicted for "stealing" - much as you would like that to be the charge, because it sounds worse.

But lets please stick with the facts.

It simply pointed out th... (Below threshold)
Reality:

It simply pointed out that the liberals/dems were not honest.

Posted by: LoveAmerica Immigrant at June 7, 2007 04:42 PM

This is a lie. He was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the court of law.

Posted by: LoveAmerica Immigrant at June 7, 2007 03:56 PM

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

- CNN 4/12/99

civil contempt of court ≠ perjury and obstruction of justice

I know you guys will do the... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I know you guys will do the verbal gymnastics. Clinton was intentionally lying under oath as a president. If that is not perjury, then what?
Using Libby standard, should he be at least removed from office if the dems were honest?

It simply pointed out that the liberals/dems were not honest.

---------------------------
Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." [7]
-------------------------------------------------

Clinton was intentionall... (Below threshold)
jim:

Clinton was intentionally lying under oath in the court of law as the president. Using Libby standard, should he be at least removed from office if the dems were honest?

Once again, for the 10,000th time, no.

Bill Clinton was not convicted of perjury.

Libby was convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, impeding a Federal investigation into a violation of national security.

Do you understand the difference between lying and being convicted of perjury? Yes or no?

Clinton was intentionall... (Below threshold)
jim:

Clinton was intentionally lying under oath as a president. If that is not perjury, then what?

Go ask the judge, and go ask the Senate.

Hey, I'm just telling you guys the facts. Sorry it's so hard for you to accept them.

Jim, you are too di... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
you are too dishonest here. Remember Tom Delay. Was he convicted of any crimes using your sleazy standard? Pelosi was lying wrt ethics. Jefferson was beyond ethical breach already. Stashing illegal cash in your freezer. What else do you need to start an ethics proceeding? You guys simply cannot be honest.

I know you guys will do ... (Below threshold)
A little knowledge:

I know you guys will do the verbal gymnastics. Clinton was intentionally lying under oath as a president. If that is not perjury, then what?"

Law dictionary

Jim, So you would a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
So you would allow the president to lie under oath in the court of law. If you are honest, you must conclude that the liberal dems were dishonest. Richard Armitage was the one who leaked the name, not Libby. And the prosecutor knew that already! You guys simply cannot be honest.

The judge (a dem) again and the dems in the Senate were dishonest. Fair enough?

Ok, liberals defend intenti... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Ok, liberals defend intentionally lying under oath in the court of law even by the president of the US.

That 's the liberal (sew*ge) standard. Accurate enough now.

This is the liberal Berger ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

This is the liberal Berger standard:

Liberals defend a national security advisor to a president intentionally "taking" classied information using his privileged position.

Another liberal (sew*ge) standard.

you are too dishonest he... (Below threshold)
jim:

you are too dishonest here.

LAI, you are not acknowledging reality here or anywhere.

Remember Tom Delay. Was he convicted of any crimes using your sleazy standard?

Not yet. He was indicted, tho, like Jefferson is. And it took 3 months after Delay's indictment, for him to actually step down.

And the indictment only came after years of ethically-challenged activity in Congress.

Are we going to start making comparisons between Tom Delay now, and Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House? And list his many improprieties? Are you really sure you want to even open that door?

Pelosi was lying wrt ethics.

Because you say it's so, it must be true?

Jefferson was beyond ethical breach already. Stashing illegal cash in your freezer. What else do you need to start an ethics proceeding?

Here's what it took for Tom Delay: he was admonished by the ethics committee as far back as 1999.

He then continued in office for 6 years.

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=476747

And then, when his crimes started to catch up to him, he:

# Changed House ethics rules to let a complaint die if the ethics committee cannot decide whether it should be investigated within 45 days. Link
Source: "After Retreat, G.O.P. Changes House Ethics Rule," The New York Times, January 5, 2005

# Changed House ethics rules to allow either party to block an ethics investigation by voting along party lines, thus denying a majority vote to allow it to proceed.
Source: "After Retreat, G.O.P. Changes House Ethics Rule," The New York Times, January 5, 2005

# Changed House ethics rules to allow several members involved in a single ethics investigation to hire the same attorney. House rules had prohibited this practice in order to ensure one attorney could not gain access to too much information and potentially coordinate testimony.

Then it took him 3 months to step down, after he was actually indicted.

Please, let's keep bringing up Tom Delay. I **love** talking about him.

And it was found that the p... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And it was found that the prosecutor in Tom Delay 's case was a partisan Dem. If i remembered correctly, his charge was tossed as meritless. That 's another liberal sewage standard. Common Cause is simply another liberal source of "misinformation". You still repeat old lies. Pelosi is corrupt and was lying. She placed probably the most corrupt congressman on important committee even after knowing the fact of stashing cash in freezer. Did Delay do that? Is Delay in court right now?


Still
Ok, liberals defend intentionally lying under oath in the court of law even by the president of the US.

That 's the liberal (sew*ge) standard. Accurate enough now.


So you would allow the ... (Below threshold)
jim:

So you would allow the president to lie under oath in the court of law.

Wow.

No, I would not.

But Clinton's lying about his private sex life, in a frivolous lawsuit that was later simply laughed out of court by the judge, is not perjury.

Morally and legally, it does not compare to what Libby did. Period.

Can't you see that?

If you are honest, you must conclude that the liberal dems were dishonest.

If you are honest, you must conclude this whole "your guys did it too!" argument is an attempt to pretend that Libby shouldn't go to jail, for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Richard Armitage was the one who leaked the name, not Libby.

So why hasn't the honest Bush Administration put him in jail already? You tell me.

And the prosecutor knew that already!

But he couldn't prove that, because of Libby's - once again - perjury and obstruction of justice.

Do you understand now?

The judge (a dem) again and the dems in the Senate were dishonest. Fair enough?

Oh yeah, sure. Of course that's fair. Clinton lying about his private sex life means that Libby shouldn't go to jail for perjury and obstruction of justice, in a Federal investigation of a breach of National Security.

Sure, that makes perfect sense.

If i remembered correctl... (Below threshold)
jim:

If i remembered correctly, his charge was tossed as meritless.

You remember incorrectly. From what I've looked up, one charge was dismissed but all the more serious ones were kept.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12142403/

"December 2005: A judge dismisses the conspiracy charge but refuses to throw out the more serious allegations of money laundering, dashing the congressman's immediate hopes of reclaiming his House majority leader post and increasing the likelihood of a criminal trial next year."

Oh, and I was wrong; Delay resigned as speaker but still stayed on in Congress until April of 2006. So Jefferson has 11 months to take his time before he becomes as bad as Tom Delay, even in this one tiny way.

So, LAI, to sum up:<p... (Below threshold)
jim:

So, LAI, to sum up:

1) Clinton's civil crimes do not equal Libby's Federal crimes
2) Berger's misdemeanors do not equal Libby's Fedeal crimes
3) Jefferson's alleged (but likely) crimes do not even come close to matching Foley's **or** Tom Delay's crimes - including that Tom Delay took 10 months to resign after his indictment.
4) Nancy Pelosi's placement of Jefferson on various committees, does not even come close to Dennis Hastert's continued covering up for and coddling pedophile Mark Foley, which included letting Foley be on the Committee for Missing and Exploited Children (!!!)
5) Nancy Pelosi's actions as Speaker do not in any way, shape or form begin to match Tom Delay's record of 8 years of ethical impropriety, including changing the rules of the ethics office itself, and getting someone fired from it for having the nerve to admonish him.

Thank you for playing.

Jim, Again looks li... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Again looks like liberals love the crooks in their midst.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_15466.shtml

Nifong, Ronnie Earl are prime examples of the liberal sewage. And you are fully supporting them


Jim,
Again here using your liberal (sew*ge) standard again. Simply cannot be honest.

(1) Liberals defend intentionally lying under oath in the court of law even by the president of the US.

(2) Liberals defend a national security advisor to a president intentionally "taking" classied information related to NATIONAL SECURITY using his privileged position against the law.

Simply forgot about Pelosi.... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Simply forgot about Pelosi. Seems like she likes the crooks on her side: Murtha, Mollohan, Jefferson ... Did she pass over Alice Hasting because of personal "problem". Pelosi is dishonest and corrupt.

Nancy Pelosi's actions as S... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nancy Pelosi's actions as Speaker do not in any way, shape or form begin to match Tom Delay's record of 8 years of ethical impropriety, including changing the rules of the ethics office itself, and getting someone fired from it for having the nerve to admonish him.
-------------------------------------------------
In her short tenure, she has exceeded expectation in building the liberal culture of corruption in Wash.

Correction: Pelosi passed over Harman, not Hasting, for the intelligence committee because of what? Harman was not religously against the terrorist eavesdropping program.

The current congress now has the most corrupt congressman so far (Jefferson). Murtha, Mollahan, Conyer. I will try to find more later.

A good summary here<... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:
okay, LAI, you simply conti... (Below threshold)
jim:

okay, LAI, you simply continue to bring in more completely irrelevant information.

I see your allegations of Conyers, Murtha and Mollahan, and I raise you Bob Ney, Randy Cunningham, Bill Frist, Curt Weldon, Richard Pombo, Tom Feeney, Steve LaTourette - and that's just for starters.

And your contention that Jefferson is the most corrupt congressman so far, is already countered by the example of Tom Delay. And Delay himself is probably a piker by historical standards.

I officially discontinue discussing with you on this thread. Believe that Pelosi being evil means that Libby should be able to perjure and obstruct justice, or whatever it is you want to believe.

Liberals defend intentio... (Below threshold)
jim:

Liberals defend intentionally lying under oath in the court of law even by the president of the US.

No, we do not, sorry. Please find the place where I said it was great and awesome that Clinton lied.

I'm just setting you straight about reality. Lying is not perjury. Sorry that hurts you so much.

Liberals defend a national security advisor to a president intentionally "taking" classied information related to NATIONAL SECURITY using his privileged position against the law.

Not defending him, never did defend him.

Read my comment at 4:20, 3:38, and June 6 @ 4:35.

Interesting that telling the truth looks like defending to you.

Believe that Pelosi being e... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Believe that Pelosi being evil means that Libby should be able to perjure and obstruct justice, or whatever it is you want to believe.
-------------------------------------------------
Reps at least clean house when they got caught. That 's the minimum they can do. The dems cannot even attain to that low standard. That 's the point. And it is why they are in the sewage. The liberals like you won't fight the corruption on your side. On other hand, you spin and defend the far more corruption by your leaders.

Wrt Libby, you guys are all gungho for him to go to jail. Yet at the same time, you are doing this. No matter how you spin or run, you simply can not hide the hypocritical dishonesty of the liberal sew*ge here. Jim, why are Murtha, Mollohan, Conyers still have important positions? Is Pelosi lying when she talked about the most ethical congress?

Jim,
Again here using your liberal (sew*ge) standard again. Simply cannot be honest.

(1) Liberals defend intentionally lying under oath in the court of law even by the president of the US.

(2) Liberals defend a national security advisor to a president intentionally "taking" classied information related to NATIONAL SECURITY using his privileged position against the law.

Liberals defend intentional... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Liberals defend intentionally lying under oath in the court of law even by the president of the US.

No, we do not, sorry. Please find the place where I said it was great and awesome that Clinton lied.

I'm just setting you straight about reality. Lying is not perjury. Sorry that hurts you so much.

Liberals defend a national security advisor to a president intentionally "taking" classied information related to NATIONAL SECURITY using his privileged position against the law.

Not defending him, never did defend him.
-------------------------------------------------
You simply try to defend your hyprocritcal dishonesty wrt Libby. He deserves to go to jail big time. And trying to minimize "intetionally lying under oath by the president of the US" and "a national security advisor to a president intentionally "taking" classied information related to NATIONAL SECURITY using his privileged position against the law" is not defending. Who are you trying to fool?

Please find the place where... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Please find the place where I said it was great and awesome that Clinton lied.
-------------------------------------------------
Where did you say Clinton should be removed from office even though he doesn't have to go to jail as Libby? He is the president, right. And he "intentionally lied under oath in the court of law". Given that Clinton was willing to lie under oath and Berger knew what he was doing when he intentionally "took" classified information related to national security on behalf of Clinton, and you are still trying to spin for them.

If Libby must go to jail for "lying under oath" when he was not even the leaker and the prosecutor knew the leaker 2 years ago already, then at the very least Clinton should be removed from office and Berger should go to jail as well.
That is a hypocritical dishonesty that you can hide from.

Oh, BTW Pelosi was found do... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Oh, BTW Pelosi was found doing exactly the things she accused Delay of doing. Then Pelosi is at least as corrupt as Delay, right? Why she is still in office? And you didn't even call for her resignation. That 's the stuff of Brian 's club.

Reps at least clean hous... (Below threshold)
jim:

Reps at least clean house when they got caught.

Riiiiiight.

That's why TOm Delay was allowed to stay as Speaker for 3 months after he was indicted, and allowed to stay in Congress for 10 months after he was indicted, and why Curt Weldon stayed in until he was defeated in re-election, and why Bob Ney was allowed to stay in until he pled guilty and resigned, and etc. etc. etc....

Honestly, are you even reading my rebuttals? Why do I bother?

Jim, why are Murtha, Mol... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, why are Murtha, Mollohan, Conyers still have important positions?

Gee, maybe because they haven't even been indicted of anything?

Is Pelosi lying when she talked about the most ethical congress?

No - go and look at the Tom Delay-run GOP congress.

Granted, being less corrupt than the Tom Delay Congress is not that difficult. All you'd have to do is not tolerate pedophiles to stay in positions of authority over minors.

If Pelosi sold crack to Satan on the House floor while beating old ladies with a briefacse full of money, she still might be heading a better Congress.

Where did you say Clinto... (Below threshold)
jim:

Where did you say Clinton should be removed from office even though he doesn't have to go to jail as Libby? He is the president, right.

lying is not perjury.

please tell me you understand that lying is not perjury.

lying is not perjury.</i... (Below threshold)

lying is not perjury.

Yes, it is.

From the Law.com dictionary:

perjury
n. the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn (to tell the truth) by a notary public, court clerk or other official. This false statement may be made in testimony in court, administrative hearings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, as well as by signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) known to contain false information. Although it is a crime, prosecutions for perjury are rare, because a defendant will argue he/she merely made a mistake or misunderstood.

Emphasis added.

Of course, I guess it depends on what your definition of "lying" is.

Perjury is lying.Lyi... (Below threshold)
logic:

Perjury is lying.
Lying is not necessarily perjury.

That's why TOm Delay was al... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

That's why TOm Delay was allowed to stay as Speaker for 3 months after he was indicted,
-----------------------------------------------
Jim,
Using your stupid standard, Delay was not a Speaker of the House (Hastert was). Pelosi is the SPEAKER and she was doing exactly the things that she accused Delay of. Is she as corrupt as Delay then all these years? Also, the dems were so dishonest that they supported a corrupt partisan like Ronnie Earl to do jury shopping to indict Delay. This is simply more example of the liberal sewage: liberals have no respect for the law. They are willing to skirt the laws and abuse it for political purposes.

Again, my question to you, if Pelosi was found doing exactly the things Delay was accused of, then she is as corrupt as Delay, right?

Sigghghghhhhghghhghghhh....... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sigghghghhhhghghhghghhh....

Simply lying in court is not perjury.

I understand that the law.com dictionary says it is. But according to the presiding judge and the Senate, it is not. I'm not a lawyer, but I expect that the definition is abbreviated for laymen.

But in any case, that's not the definition of perjury as practiced by people who know - the judge and the Senate.

As I quoted, waaaaay back upstream,

"In order for a lie under oath to amount to perjury -- as Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) explained on the floor of the Senate on February 12, 1999 -- it must be "material" to the underlying case. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that Clinton's deposition in the Monica Lewinsky case was immaterial to the sexual harassment suit that Paula Jones brought against Clinton.""

If you don't like this, take it up with either the dictionary, the judge, or the Senate, as you prefer.

Sure - if Pelosi gets indic... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sure - if Pelosi gets indicted on multiple counts of racketeering, influence peddling, etc. etc. and reforms the actual rules of the Ethics committe so she doesn't get indicted, etc. etc. then she will be as corrupt as Delay.

"Intentionally lying under ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

"Intentionally lying under oath in the court of law" and liberals still trying to do verbal gymnastics. And their defense of Clinton (hiding behind the mantra "lying" about sex) is so dishonest and despicable. Here is why.

Remember Clarence Thomas, liberals brought out the charge of "sexual harassment" agaisnt Thomas based on Anita Hill 's testimony (no independent proof - just she said he said) that he made dirty jokes to her. Now forward to Clinton, all of the sudden, having sex with a young subordinate is not a big deal. Not only one, we had Kathleen Wiley (a dem) claimed that Clinton made advance on her. This was in addition to other women like Paula Jones and another woman in Dallas (forgot her name). Also on top of that we had an alleged rape by Juanita Broadrick. All of the sudden, sexual harassment is not that important. Liberals were willing to overlook even an alleged rape. I still remembered Patricia Ireland trying to defend Clinton against Broadrick 's charge on Fox or CNN.

If Clinton was willing to intentionally lie under oath in the court of law, it was quite probable that he was lying in the other cases as well. The level of hypocrisy and dishonesty displayed by the liberals here is simply beyond parody.

(I fully expected that liberals now will claim that Thomas was confirmed for SC while Clinton was not). We cannot expect much from these folks. Even at this late time, they still couldn't bring themselves to acknowledge that Clinton should have been removed from the office. At the same time, they are gungho for Libby to go to jail. No shame.

LAI, I think I can simplify... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, I think I can simplify this.

Your premise is that:

a) Clinton is as bad as Libby, because both lied;
b) Because Libby has to go to jail, Clinton should too
c) This proves Democrats are as bad as Republicans
d) any attempt to point out these argument are not logical, is liberal sewage.

For all your other arguments, just put in "Pelosi" or "Berger".

Sure - if Pelosi gets indic... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Sure - if Pelosi gets indicted on multiple counts of racketeering, influence peddling, etc. etc. and reforms the actual rules of the Ethics committe so she doesn't get indicted, etc. etc. then she will be as corrupt as Delay.
------------------------------------------------
Why the hedge Jim? She told you she would clean up Congress, right. She had Jefferson, Murtha, Conyers, Mollohan still in important positions. She exempted a company in her district from her minimum wage law. Trying to spin again, Jim? She kicked Harman from the intelligence committee chairman. I can also show you that Pelosi brought ethical charge against Delay while she was doing the same thing all these years (influence peddling). BTW, is Delay still indicted in courts now? Is this an example of liberals supporting crooks like Nifong and Ronnie Earl to subvert the law for political purposes?

Only in 5 months, Jim and we have Pelosi 's culture of corruption fully in place. Dems now proposing more porks than the Reps. At least the reps wage war against their corrupt leaders. Liberals defend their corrupt leaders. Liberals cannot even attain the minimum standard that we expected of Reps.

Jim, I simply point... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
I simply pointed out the hypocritical dishonesty of liberals and I told you why: liberals defend their sewage at any cost!

Well then, LAI, sit comfort... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well then, LAI, sit comforted in your superiority. By defending GOP criminals by saying 'Democrats are hypocrites', you have proven there are no GOP criminals.

She exempted a company i... (Below threshold)
jim:

She exempted a company in her district from her minimum wage law.

This inaccurate accusation, in fact this LIE, has already been discredited upstream, in this very thread.

If you can't be bothered to remember facts that have already been brought up ****in this thread***, then that's it, I really am out of here.

Well then, LAI, sit comfort... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Well then, LAI, sit comforted in your superiority. By defending GOP criminals by saying 'Democrats are hypocrites', you have proven there are no GOP criminals.
---------------------------------------------
Even this late of the discussion and you cannot be honest still. The Reps had its criminals and crooks, but at least they cleaned them up or the base will force them to when it is known. They don't deserve any kudos for that. That 's the bare minimum the Rep can do. We expected higher of them. That 's why you see conservative bloggers waging against the corrupt Rep leaders.

The liberals on the other hand spin (ie lie), twist, distort, distract to defend their crooks. Just look at the treatment between Thomas and Clinton wrt sexual harassment. Also the difference between Libby and Berger/Clinton. Even on this thread the hypocrisy wrt Jefferson and Armitage (see my post on Barney 's paragraph) is in full display.

The point is that the liberals cannot even attain the bare minimum standard we expected of Reps. The double standard and hypocrisy of liberals is beyond parody. That 's point.


Jim, You cited anot... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
You cited another lie to debunk the truth. She did exempt the company in her district from the minimum wage law. After the outcry, she was forced to include it. Feel free to bug out of here. Your dishonesty has been exposed.

The Reps had its crimina... (Below threshold)
jim:

The Reps had its criminals and crooks, but at least they cleaned them up or the base will force them to when it is known.

Already disproved this with the examples of Tom Delay, et al. I refer you to my comment of 7:08 .

But if you want to consider Tom Delay staying on 10 months after being indicted as 'cleaning up' please feel free.

So, when all is said and do... (Below threshold)
jim:

So, when all is said and done, it wasn't included, right?

So all your supposition about the where's, how's, and why's of that is just that - supposition without evidence, where there was no harm done.

You merely prove again that you're equating things that you **think** Democrats did, or even **wanted to do**, with things that Republicans were indicted and convicted of.

!!

And then on top of it you accuse all Democrats and liberals of hypocrisy.

Gotta love irony.

The law states, pure and si... (Below threshold)

The law states, pure and simple, that lying under oath is perjury. Spin that all you want, you won't change that simple fact any more than you can change 2+2 to equal 5 no matter how hard you spin.

By the way, what was Mr. Clinton disbarred for, Jim?

LAI, I recommend we stop fe... (Below threshold)

LAI, I recommend we stop feeding the lefty troll. Clearly his worldview is "Democrats good; Republicans bad," and nothing is ever going to change that.

Brian, you simply cannot... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, you simply cannot stop lying and defending the liberal sewage: trying to excuse a company in her own city from the minimum wage. I bet you this company is not in the list of her contributors.

Assuming you meant to say "I bet you this company is in the list of her contributors"... I'll take that bet, and YOU LOSE.

Democrats involved in the legislation say that neither Del Monte nor StarKist has lobbied Mrs. Pelosi or the committee on the matter. And records show that while Del Monte political action committees have given $5,300 in the past five years to Republicans, neither they nor Del Monte executives have given to any Democrats.

...
"For over 50 years, the Federal Department of Labor has provided that wages in U.S. territories, including American Samoa, be set by a federally appointed wage board...."

Are you going to blame a 50-year old statute on Pelosi also? You get more moronic with each post, but at least you've stopped lying about what you said.

The law states, pure and... (Below threshold)
jim:

The law states, pure and simple, that lying under oath is perjury.

I guess someone should go tell that to the Judge and the Senate, then.

Spin that all you want, you won't change that simple fact any more than you can change 2+2 to equal 5 no matter how hard you spin.

I guess you're right - Clinton wasn't convicted of perjury, but you think he was, so that actually changes reality.

The law states, pure and... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The law states, pure and simple, that lying under oath is perjury.

No, it doesn't. Law.com states so, pure and simple, and you're just purely and simply repeating them. But you are wrong about the law. The law says the lie must be "material".

Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding". It is sometimes called "lying under oath"; that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand--that it Could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case. http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm

First, a brush-up on the definition of perjury. Perjury means (a) knowingly (b) making a false statement (c) about material facts (d) while under oath. It's not perjury if you honestly believe what you're saying is true, or if your lie is irrelevant to the issue you're under oath about. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that it's OK for "a wily witness [to] succeed in derailing the questioner--so long as the witness speaks the literal truth." Disingenuousness and misleading (but not technically inaccurate) answers are not perjury. Finally, you're off the hook for perjury if a subsequent statement in the same proceeding corrects an otherwise perjurious statement.
http://www.slate.com/id/1002007

PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath ... that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

guilty of the crime of perjury if the statement is shown to be materially false -- that is, the lie is relevant and significant to the case.
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/717ED497-87A3-4C24-AB5C5FDB5E82409D/alpha/D/

Every person who shall wilfully and corruptly swear, testify, or affirm falsely to any material matter under any oath ... shall be guilty of perjury
http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/97/009/0059.htm

Aw, what's the point? You already know. You're just pretending to not know.

By the way, what was Mr.... (Below threshold)
jim:

By the way, what was Mr. Clinton disbarred for, Jim?

Why don't you tell me?

I bet it wasn't perjury, was it?

The law states, pure and... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The law states, pure and simple, that lying under oath is perjury.

No, it doesn't. Law.com states so, pure and simple, and you're just purely and simply repeating them. But you are wrong about the law. The law says the lie must be "material".

Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding". It is sometimes called "lying under oath"; that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand--that it Could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case. criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm

First, a brush-up on the definition of perjury. Perjury means (a) knowingly (b) making a false statement (c) about material facts (d) while under oath. It's not perjury if you honestly believe what you're saying is true, or if your lie is irrelevant to the issue you're under oath about. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that it's OK for "a wily witness [to] succeed in derailing the questioner--so long as the witness speaks the literal truth." Disingenuousness and misleading (but not technically inaccurate) answers are not perjury. Finally, you're off the hook for perjury if a subsequent statement in the same proceeding corrects an otherwise perjurious statement.
www.slate.com/id/1002007

PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath ... that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC
www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

guilty of the crime of perjury if the statement is shown to be materially false -- that is, the lie is relevant and significant to the case.
www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/717ED497-87A3-4C24-AB5C5FDB5E82409D/alpha/D/

Every person who shall wilfully and corruptly swear, testify, or affirm falsely to any material matter under any oath ... shall be guilty of perjury
www.mscode.com/free/statutes/97/009/0059.htm

Aw, what's the point? You already know. You're just pretending to not know.

She did exempt the compa... (Below threshold)
Brian:

She did exempt the company in her district from the minimum wage law. After the outcry, she was forced to include it. Feel free to bug out of here. Your dishonesty has been exposed.

Moron, the law exempting Samoa was 50 years old and renewed by the Republican Congress in 1993! All you guys did was force her to repeal it.

I'd say "your dishonesty has been exposed", but your statements are so obviously false on their face that your dishonesty was never "posed" in the first place.

By the way, just for the re... (Below threshold)
Brian:

By the way, just for the record, Clinton's "disbarment" was more of a temporary suspension. It was lifted in Jan. '06.

renewed by the Republica... (Below threshold)
Brian:

renewed by the Republican Congress in 1993!

That should be 2003.

Brian, Liar, if the... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
Liar, if the minimum wage are so important, then why exempt Somoa from it. You quoted the Dems defending Pelosi? Just like Dems defending Clinton? Liars defending liars. You guys cannot stop lying. How many years the dems been working on the minimum wage law and they don't know about that? It just happened to be the company in her district. What a coincidence!

And you continue to defend the liberal sewage wrt Clinton. Here it is the liberal hypocritical dishonesty in full display again.

Remember Clarence Thomas, liberals brought out the charge of "sexual harassment" agaisnt Thomas based on Anita Hill 's testimony (no independent proof - just she said he said) that he made dirty jokes to her. Now forward to Clinton, all of the sudden, having sex with a young subordinate is not a big deal. Not only one, we had Kathleen Wiley (a dem) claimed that Clinton made advance on her. This was in addition to other women like Paula Jones and another woman in Dallas (forgot her name). Also on top of that we had an alleged rape by Juanita Broadrick. All of the sudden, sexual harassment is not that important. Liberals were willing to overlook even an alleged rape. I still remembered Patricia Ireland trying to defend Clinton against Broadrick 's charge on Fox or CNN.

If Clinton was willing to intentionally lie under oath in the court of law, it was quite probable that he was lying in the other cases as well. The level of hypocrisy and dishonesty displayed by the liberals here is simply beyond parody.

(I fully expected that liberals now will claim that Thomas was confirmed for SC while Clinton was not). We cannot expect much from these folks. Even at this late time, they still couldn't bring themselves to acknowledge that Clinton should have been removed from the office. At the same time, they are gungho for Libby to go to jail. No shame.

That should be 2003.... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

That should be 2003.
-----------------------------
That 's true. The Reps were incompetent and coward to be snookered by the dems. The dems on the other hand was willing to sneak this through if it was not brought up.


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120720-2734r.htm

Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa.
"I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."


A little more research turn... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

A little more research turned up this: more democratic hypocrisy. They knew about this practice in American Somoa all along and they simply ignored it.

http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=64701&cat=1

Democrats have long tried to pull the Northern Marianas under the umbrella of U.S. labor law, accusing the island's government and its industry leaders of coddling sweatshops and turning a blind eye to forced abortions and indentured servitude.

Samoa has escaped such notoriety, and its low-wage canneries have a protector of a different political stripe, Democratic delegate Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, whose campaign coffers have been well stocked by the tuna industry that virtually runs his island's economy.

When StarKist lobbied in the past to prevent small minimum wage hikes, Faleomavaega denounced the efforts.

"StarKist is a billion dollar a year company," he said after a 2003 meeting with StarKist and Del Monte executives. "It is not fair to pay a corporate executive $65 million a year while a cannery work only makes $3.60 per hour."

The Reps were incompeten... (Below threshold)
jim:

The Reps were incompetent and coward to be snookered by the dems.

Ah. So when Republicans do something bad, it's Democrats' fault...and when Democrats do something bad, it's Democrats' fault.

And in this case, when something bad has gone on for the past 50 years, and Democrats actually **fix** it, it's till their fault.

Can you see the lack of logic here?

Hey feminists; what about B... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey feminists; what about Bill?
===================

And in this case, when some... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And in this case, when something bad has gone on for the past 50 years, and Democrats actually **fix** it, it's till their fault.
-------------------------------------------------
JIm,
Pelosi and the dems were caught red-handed in a despicable hypocrisy. Just like the case of Clinton, the dems have been lying about the poor and minimum. And you and your fellow travelers still try to spin to defend a despicable hypocrisy. Let me explain to you slowly again.

The Reps claimed that raising the minimum wages will hurt the poor. So they supported the exemptions for both Northern Mianas and Somoa. Both have similar low minimum wages. Pelosi and dems on the other hand tried to rush through a legislation in the dark without full debate to include only Northern Mianas for the first time while excluding Somoa. This is an INTENTIONAL exemption. They knew both were under exemptions, but they tried to include one and exclude the other. The despicable thing is they just "happened" to exclude Somoa because it has a Dem rep. All the dems' rhetoric about disparage between CEO and low wage workers are simply hypocritical lies as usual.

Now you understand the logic and the despicable hypocrisy of the dems? Only in 5 months and Pelosi has her culture of corruption fully in place already. You can be proud of your liberal culture of corruption.

Let me explain to you sl... (Below threshold)
jim:

Let me explain to you slowly again.

You might try explaining it to yourself first.

...I should know better.

What I said:

When Republicans do something bad, it's Democrats' fault, and when Democrats do something bad, it's Democrats' fault.

What you said:

"The Reps claimed that raising the minimum wages will hurt the poor. So they supported the exemptions for both Northern Mianas and Somoa. Both have similar low minimum wages. Pelosi and dems on the other hand tried to rush through a legislation in the dark without full debate to include only Northern Mianas for the first time while excluding Somoa. This is an INTENTIONAL exemption. They knew both were under exemptions, but they tried to include one and exclude the other. The despicable thing is they just "happened" to exclude Somoa because it has a Dem rep. All the dems' rhetoric about disparage between CEO and low wage workers are simply hypocritical lies as usual."

So how does that refute what I said?

The Dems push through something to increase minimum wages for the first time in ten years - but because they don't include **all** the territory that hasn't been included by **Republicans** in over 50 years, but only increased the coverage for **some** of it, this obviously means Democrats are evil?

Whatever. You are a genuine true believer, and facts won't sway you. Good luck with your vision of reality.

Hey feminists; what abou... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hey feminists; what about Bill?

Huh?

What about Nixon, how's that?

"Liberals defend a national... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Liberals defend a national security advisor to a president intentionally "taking" classied information related to NATIONAL SECURITY using his privileged position against the law."

That would be an "EX" National Security Advisor who stole documents years after he was in office.

WHAT DID HE STEAL AND DESTROY WHILE IN OFFICE?

We know it wasn't the White House furniture , the Clintons took that and much much more.

Jim you are an Idiot. Y... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Jim you are an Idiot. You may or may not be a good judge of character, you are still defending the indefensible, the immoral and yes the evil as well stupid. As if you didn't know.

Still trying to "Clintonize" the Republicans are ya, they must be paying well.

So how does that refute wha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So how does that refute what I said?

The Dems push through something to increase minimum wages for the first time in ten years - but because they don't include **all** the territory that hasn't been included by **Republicans** in over 50 years, but only increased the coverage for **some** of it, this obviously means Democrats are evil?
-------------------------------------------------
Jim,
You are stubbornly dense. Republicans believed that raising minimum wages will hurt the poor. So they made the exemption for all territories. The Dems hypocritically claimed to care for the poors, but they exclude Somoa from the increase in minimum wage to help their "evil" CEO friend. They INTENTIONALLY exclude Somoa to help their business friend there. If minimum wage is good for the poor, why not including Somoa as well. The reps supported the minimum wage bill was snookered by the dishonest dems.

REad this again,

http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=64701&cat=1

But in American Samoa the tuna industry rules the roost. Canneries employ nearly 5,000 workers on the island, or 40 percent of the work force, paying on average $3.60 an hour, compared to $7.99 an hour for Samoan government employees. Samoan minimum wage rates are set by federal industry committees, which visit the island every two years.

Faleomavaega's aides said Monday that the delegate was in American Samoa for the opening session of the island's government and would not comment.

When StarKist lobbied in the past to prevent small minimum wage hikes, Faleomavaega denounced the efforts.

"StarKist is a billion dollar a year company," he said after a 2003 meeting with StarKist and Del Monte executives. "It is not fair to pay a corporate executive $65 million a year while a cannery work only makes $3.60 per hour."

But after the same meeting, Faleomavaega said he understood that the Samoan canneries were facing severe wage competition from South American and Asian competitors.

What about Nixon, how's tha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

What about Nixon, how's that?
---------------------------------
Nixon was forced to resign from office. Dems kept clinton in office. That 's the contrast for you. It is just another example of the liberals cannot even attain the minimum standard of decency. That 's why the term liberal sewage is an apt term.

Rob you are an Idiot... (Below threshold)
jim:

Rob you are an Idiot. You may or may not be a good judge of character, you are still defending the indefensible, the immoral and yes the evil as well stupid. As if you didn't know.

Still trying to "Bushize" the Democrats are ya, they must be paying well.

OK, LAI, I think I understa... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, LAI, I think I understand you.

When Republicans do something like exempt people from minimum wage, it's for good reasons.

When Democrats increase the minimum wage, and make less people exempt from this than the Republicans, the fact that they didn't go even *further* about it than the Republicans means they're evil.

Slice it any way you want it: Republicans wanted this exemption, kept this exemption, and Republicans then also resisted the Minimum Wage Increase, all the way to Bush vetoing it.

Democrats pushed through the legislation, and included more people in doing it.

And you want to create theoretical reasons why the Democrats didn't **initially** remove **all** the exemptions, and use this to say the Democrats are somehow worse than the Republicans - even though the final result is, the Democrats removed the Samoa exemption too. So, in reality, you don't even have this to complain about.

I know it's hard for you, having to constnatly make apologies for the Republican party. But it's not the Democrats' fault that you've identified with Republicans.

The Democrats don't have to perfect to better than Republicans - they just have to be better. So far, in the example you just cited, they have done better for more people - so they are better.

I hope some day you can see this.

WHAT DID HE STEAL AND DE... (Below threshold)
jim:

WHAT DID HE STEAL AND DESTROY WHILE IN OFFICE?

From the way you sound so angry, it must have been....your heart.

Seriously, dude. Copies of documents. $50,000 fine. And you're still pissing a fit about it - when you aren't even worried about stuff that's going on now. Destruction of habeus corpus much?

Jim, YOu are simply... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
YOu are simply too dense now. Reps are acting consistent with their belief. They believed raising the minimum wages will hurt the poor. So they exempt all territories. The dems claim raising the minimum wage help the poor. Yet they selectively exclude Somoa from the minimum wage raise to help their business friends. That 's a despicable hypocrisy.

Dems INTENTIONALLY exclude the poor worker in Somoa from the minimum wage raise to help their business friend against their own claim. And you are still trying to play this stupid dishonest game to defend this hypocrisy. You are willingly ignorant now just to defend the liberal sewage.

If you are honest, you should boot Pelosi out of office for this hypocrisy.

Jim, You are simply... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
You are simply dense and try to use this silly dishonest tactic to defend the liberal sewage of Clinton/Berger/Pelosi, then good luck to you. You can be proud of your liberal culture of corruption. In only 5 months, so you should be very proud of such a fast pace to build your culture of corruption.

Cats are nice.... (Below threshold)
jim:

Cats are nice.

Those weren't copies he sto... (Below threshold)
kim:

Those weren't copies he stole out with on little cat feet.
==================================

Ask the cats.... (Below threshold)
jim:

Ask the cats.




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