1
   

Shooting Elephants in a Barrel

 
 
Miller
 
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 10:29 am
Shooting Elephants in a Barrel
by Ann Coulter

Posted 03/07/2007 ET
Updated 03/07/2007 ET

Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.

It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame's name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department's Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name and Fitzgerald knew it.

With no crime to investigate, Fitzgerald pursued a pointless investigation into nothing, getting a lot of White House officials to make statements under oath and hoping some of their recollections would end up conflicting with other witness recollections, so he could charge some Republican with "perjury" and enjoy the fawning media attention.

As a result, Libby is now a convicted felon for having a faulty memory of the person who first told him that Joe Wilson was a delusional boob who lied about his wife sending him to Niger.

This makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican.

Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.

Meanwhile, conservatives of any importance constantly have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from utterly frivolous criminal prosecutions. Everything is illegal, but only Republicans get prosecuted.

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh was subjected to a three-year criminal investigation for allegedly buying prescription drugs illegally to treat chronic back pain. Despite the witch-hunt, Democrat prosecutor Barry E. Krischer never turned up a crime.

Even if he had, to quote liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz: "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted." Unless they're Republicans.

The vindictive prosecution of Limbaugh finally ended last year with a plea bargain in which Limbaugh did not admit guilt. Gosh, don't you feel safer now? I know I do.

In another prescription drug case with a different result, last year, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Democrat), apparently high as a kite on prescription drugs, crashed a car on Capitol Hill at 3 a.m. That's abuse of prescription drugs plus a DUI offense. Result: no charges whatsoever and one day of press on Fox News Channel.

I suppose one could argue those were different jurisdictions. How about the same jurisdiction?

In 2006, Democrat and major Clinton contributor Jeffrey Epstein was nabbed in Palm Beach in a massive police investigation into his hiring of local underage schoolgirls for sex, which I'm told used to be a violation of some kind of statute in the Palm Beach area.

The police presented Limbaugh prosecutor Krischer with boatloads of evidence, including the videotaped statements of five of Epstein's alleged victims, the procurer of the girls for Epstein and 16 other witnesses.

But the same prosecutor who spent three years maniacally investigating Limbaugh's alleged misuse of back-pain pills refused to bring statutory rape charges against a Clinton contributor. Enraging the police, who had spent months on the investigation, Krischer let Epstein off after a few hours on a single count of solicitation of prostitution. The Clinton supporter walked, and his victims were branded as whores.

The Republican former House Whip Tom DeLay is currently under indictment for a minor campaign finance violation. Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle had to empanel six grand juries before he could find one to indict DeLay on these pathetic charges -- and this is in Austin, Texas (the Upper West Side with better-looking people).

That final grand jury was so eager to indict DeLay that it indicted him on one charge that was not even a crime -- and which has since been tossed out by the courts.

After winning his primary despite the indictment, DeLay decided to withdraw from the race rather than campaign under a cloud of suspicion, and Republicans lost one of their strongest champions in Congress.

Compare DeLay's case with that of Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson, Democrat. Two years ago, an FBI investigation caught Jefferson on videotape taking $100,000 in bribe money. When the FBI searched Jefferson's house, they found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer. Two people have already pleaded guilty to paying Jefferson the bribe money.

Two years later, Bush's Justice Department still has taken no action against Jefferson. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently put Rep. William Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, engaged in a complicated land swindle, buying a parcel of land for $400,000 and selling it for over $1 million a few years later. (At least it wasn't cattle futures!)

Reid also received more than four times as much money from Jack Abramoff (nearly $70,000) as Tom DeLay ($15,000). DeLay returned the money; Reid refuses to do so. Why should he? He's a Democrat.

Former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger literally received a sentence of community service for stuffing classified national security documents in his pants and then destroying them -- big, fat federal felonies.

But Scooter Libby is facing real prison time for forgetting who told him about some bozo's wife.

Bill Clinton was not even prosecuted for obstruction of justice offenses so egregious that the entire Supreme Court staged a historic boycott of his State of the Union address in 2000.

By contrast, Linda Tripp, whose only mistake was befriending the office hosebag and then declining to perjure herself, spent millions on lawyers to defend a harassment prosecution based on far-fetched interpretations of state wiretapping laws.

Liberal law professors currently warning about the "high price" of pursuing terrorists under the Patriot Act had nothing but blood lust for Tripp one year after Clinton was impeached (Steven Lubet, "Linda Tripp Deserves to be Prosecuted," New York Times, 8/25/99).

Criminal prosecution is a surrogate for political warfare, but in this war, Republicans are gutless appeasers.

Bush has got to pardon Libby.

Human Events
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 456 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 11:30 am
Meanwhile, the Republicans are fiscally responsible and would never start a hugely expensive probe into, say, the President's sex life.

Don't believe everything you read....
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 12:25 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Meanwhile, the Republicans are fiscally responsible and would never start a hugely expensive probe into, say, the President's sex life.

Don't believe everything you read....


Being a lib you dismiss some good cases against those you support. Why is that? Pure political reasons?

If it is pure politics it doesn't suprise me that the same people who claimed the last 3 elections were all frauds. They win one election and claim the whole issue is fixed. Pure politics for the libs who don't really care about anything but being in power.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 02:20 pm
Being a reasonably intelligent person, I recognize hypocrisy when I see it.

She wrote a frickin' book about how Clinton should be impeached for lying under oath. But Scooter Libby should get a pass, eh?




And you can save the rest of the tar in your brush, as it doesn't apply to me. (Which you'd know if you'd been paying attention.)
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 12:52 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Being a reasonably intelligent person, I recognize hypocrisy when I see it.

She wrote a frickin' book about how Clinton should be impeached for lying under oath. But Scooter Libby should get a pass, eh?




And you can save the rest of the tar in your brush, as it doesn't apply to me. (Which you'd know if you'd been paying attention.)


Did you read her book or just make a silly guess?

She wrote a book about most of the scandles involving the Clintons. Some of the things she covered were the Travelgate scandle. The Clintons fired the whole White House Travel Agency group and had one of his relatives who worked for a different travel agency take over the operations. When the guy who ran old agency tried to get his job back the Clintons used the IRS to silence him. There was more to the book then him lying under oath.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:18 pm
Moreover, many of the laws about lying to federal invesigators were passed as part of the PATRIOT act....

Good citizens don't lie to federal investigators, even about matters unrelated to the incident being investigated.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:24 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Moreover, many of the laws about lying to federal invesigators were passed as part of the PATRIOT act....

Good citizens don't lie to federal investigators, even about matters unrelated to the incident being investigated.


Is that in response to my last post? If so it doesn't make any sense when talking about Coulter book.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:29 pm
I could care less about the Coulter book.... I'm certain that you are a greater expert on Coulter's writings than I ever will be.

Are you claiming that she does not discuss Clinton lying under oath in the book? If she does not do so, then I stand corrected.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 02:41 pm
DrewDad wrote:
I could care less about the Coulter book.... I'm certain that you are a greater expert on Coulter's writings than I ever will be.

Are you claiming that she does not discuss Clinton lying under oath in the book? If she does not do so, then I stand corrected.


I'm no expert on her books, I have only read 2 of them.

I'm sure she does discuss the issue, but it is a small part of her book, maybe a small chapter. She spends the rest of the time going over other shifty crap that the Clintons pulled.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Shooting Elephants in a Barrel
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 02:51:16