Damn, am I already in that stage of my life?
Bush will make you a national hero - BTW, you are only missing an a.
(c.i.a.)
BillW, I forego the "a" for now. Too many negative possibilities. LOL
Angie said that Bush's quote made it seem not only that Saddam had WMD's but that he was going to use them.
Really?
Well, Angie, who said the following?
"And mark my words. he( Saddam) will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them"
Who said it, Angie?
President William Jefferson Clinton in his speech on 12/16/1998.
You certainly don't think that President Bush should have ignored the speech and advice of the most brilliant foreign policy expert of the twentieth century, do you?
I am very much afraid that Lola doesn't know what she is talking about when she talks about "it" with regard to Clinton.
Lola quotes Joan Didion. I was not aware that Joan Didion was a legal expert.
Lola may not know who Judge Richard Posner is. He is fifty times more qualified to address the Clinton crimes than Didion is.
If Lola would not have too much trouble reading some legalese, I would direct her to the book by Judge Richard Posner, who, as the chief judge of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit and Law Professor at the University of Chicago's Law School is an expert on the subject.
Posner says: P. 54 in his book- "An Affair of State"
quote
"Even if, as I do not for a moment believe, none of President Clinton's lies under oath amounted to perjury in the strict technical sense, they were false and misleading statements designed to derail legal proceedings and so they were additional acts of obstruction of justice--as well as additional overt acts of a conspiracy to obstruct justice involving Clinton, Lewinsky,Currie, and possibly Jordan...An imaginative prosecutor could no doubt add counts of wire fraud, criminal contempt, the making of false statements to the government and aiding and abetting a crime...It is interesting to speculate on what punishment a person might recieve who committed the series of crimes that I have sketched....A conservative estimate of the outcome...would be a prison sentence of thirty to thirty seven months."
That is not Didion, Lola, that is one of the foremost legal experts in the country speaking..but it may be that you don't know the difference.
And, of course, Lola does not know that the Independent Council issued a report on Jan. 19th 2001( The last day of Clinton's tenure) in which the independent council noted that CLINTON HAD ACCEPTED A PLEA BARGAIN.
I do hope that Lola knows what a plea bargain is.
Innocent people do NOT accept plea bargains especially if they give up as much as Clinton did to avoid prosecution.
What did Clinton "give up"?
l. His law license for five years
2. He paid a $25,000 fine
3. He admitted lying in his deposition.
That, Lola,was what he did to avoid a possible prosecution by the special prosecutor.
I am sorry you did not follow the matter more closely.
One thing about "The Law" ... it frequently functions in a manner inconsistent with its own interest. I consider plea-bargaining and "Undiscosed terms of settlement" to be such inconsistencies.
I notice particularly that Bush the Younger did not claim "Executive Privilige", but rather endorsed and initiated investigation, with an assertion that if wrongdoing is uncovered, "It will be taken care of".
We shall see. The Opposition picked the fight and has a lot riding on this ... they don't need any more setbacks and embarrassments. If they can't make something of it, their credibility and standing will be considerably diminished.
Timber_ I do think that you would find that a "Plea Bargain" is not an inconsistency, as you put it.
A plea bargain, as I am sure you realize, is a process whereby the accused( Clinton) and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case.
It appears that President Clinton was satisfied to dispose of the case by paying a $25,000 fine, having his law license suspended for five years and admitting to lying in his deposition.
There was no inconsistency there. It was straightforward. Clinton's lawyers advised him that it would be in his best interests to take the plea-bargain since they could not be sure that the special prosecutor would not indict him after he left office. It is most indicative that the plea bargain was done on the last day of Clinton's tenure in office.
Timber- and as for George W. Bush's statement about endorsing and initiating investigation, As you put it, I am afraid I do not know what you are referring to.
In any case, I do not see any connection of Clinton's dilemma to anything Bush has done since, to the best of my knowledge, Bush has not been impeached or deposed or even charged.
There is no parallel at all.
Gotta disagree with you, based on my contention that the process of plea-bargaining subordinates the law to money and/or mutual convenience. That I find wrong.
I draw no parallel beyond the fact one invoked Executive Privilige, while the other did not. regardless of context or circumstance. As I said, we shall see.
Timber- Do you then think that plea-bargaining should be removed from the practice of law?
If so, I hope that you are aware that the courts in this country would come to a dead stop since they would not be able to adjudicate all of the cases before them.
Many times, of course, the prosecutors push for the plea bargain--not for money and perhaps not for MUTUAL convenience. Many of the criminals would not want to be charged at all but the prosecutors offer the criminal a choice of pleading
guilty to a lesser charge.
Pragmatism calls for the plea bargain to remain as a device since it would cost far far more to prosecute every criminal who pleaded not guilty.
It is moot as to whether Society would be able to come up with the resources to hire so many more prosecutors and judges and court personnel that would be needed if all went to costly and time consuming trials.
I understand the pragmatism of plea bargaining. I just don't like the concept, regardless how inexpedient or unachieveable might be appropriate remedy. Its a necessary evil. Its still an evil.
Timber- Perhaps my memory is failing me but I feel quite sure that BOTH Clinton and George W. Bush invoked Executive Privilege.
Clinton when the Independent Prosecutor was looking for records relating to the documents of Mike Espy, former Secretary of Agriculture when they were looking for evidence that Espy took bribes
and
George W. Bush when there was a drive to obtain Cheney's Energy Task Force Records.
To the best of my recollection, federal judges upheld EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE for Both Presidents.
No dispute there, Bush did invoke it re Cheney ... a rather different circumstance, IMO, even if not so considered by others. I find his avoidance of same in the current circumstance indicative of more than mere plausible deniability.
Haven't had any documents requested as of yet, to the best of my knowledge - wait and see what unfolds, I also don't think he has any doubt that Ashcroft will "do the right thing".
Seems there's an "Official Memo" notifying WH staff to retain, preserve, and be prepared to produce any and all electronic and hardcopy information pertinent to the matter, as far back to February, I believe. That doesn't sound like a particularly sophisticated way to begin a coverup. If little else, I have confidence in the sophistication of the Current Administration. Them boys is slick, whatever else they may be. At the very least, a relatively highly placed head or two likely have already been selected to toss to the mob should need arise ... possibly with neither the assent or knowledge of the possessors of those heads.
SOP though! Never know when ones' foot accidentally presses the record pedal when one is reaching across the room to answer the phone - for 17 minutes
or, whatever the similar incident was re: Clinton travel department eMails
and, then there was Ollie's shredder mishap - who knew they would put a 450 cubic inch with 3 dueces on it
