There's Backwards and there's . . .
BurkeWords
There's Backwards and there's . . .
In this issue:
It didn't take long for the conspiracy theorists and Starr-haters to claim that the legimate tax-evasion charges brought by the Arkansas grand jury were "politically-motivated".
Duh!
There's a simple procedure prosecutors follow: use the small fish to catch a bigger fish. When the small fish isn't doing the job, do you toss it away or fry up what you have?
In plain English, if you agree to co-operate, the charges against you are reduced or dropped entirely. When there are two or more possible targets, the first one to roll over gets it easy. Look at that couple that "left" their baby in a dumpster behind a motel in Delaware. He pled to manslaughter and agreed to testify against the "mother" (and I use that term in a purely biological definition). End result, "Mom" pleads guilty.
Far more unusual is the case of David Hale, a case that isn't making front page news, except that it was postponed because Hale was hospitalized right before it was to begin. Hale agreed to co-operate with the federal probe. His "reward" for this? State fraud charges have been filed against him. Kenneth Starr has gone on record as saying that it is "highly unusual, if not unprecedented" that someone co-operating with the feds to be subsequently brought up on state charges. For his own part, Hale argued immunity from prosecution right up to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
Making this case more unusual is the prosecutor in the case who won his recent election after large donations were made to his campaign. Large cash donations funneled into a "meaningless", local D.A. race in a small town in Arkansas. Large donations from people known under the umbrella title of "Friends of Bill".
This only shows, once again, cross Bill Clinton, and he will strike back. Not directly. Never directly. But though his cohorts.
Hale and Hubbell are to small fish in this investigation. Why, however, isn't more attention being paid to the fish that smells worst.
Return to Table of Contents.
Janet Reno appeared on the May 3, 1998, edition of Fox News
Sunday in a one-on-one interview with Tony Snow. Snow asked
Reno if the United States v. Richard Nixon was the law
of the land when it came to executive privilege".
Reno refused to answer the question in relation to the current
debate. And least, that's what she said. In point of fact, she
refused to answer the question period. Snow tried to
re-phrase the question and even referenced Ken Starr's speech from the
previous Friday which invoked the Court's ruling in the Nixon case.
Reno neither budged nor answered the question. She knows better than
that.
Return to Table of Contents.
If I were Rep. Dan Burton, I would make the following speech:
"To my fellow committee members, particularly the Democrat
members, I have one thing to say: I got your message. 'Shame on you, Dan
Burton. Shame on you.' I hear you loud and clear. Now that we have that
out of the way, let's take another vote . . . "
I'd love to see the press cover the "shame" without covering
another 19-0 Democrat vote for obstructing justice and protecting the
lawbreakers on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Return to Table of Contents.
At a fundraiser this past weekend, First Lady Hillary Clinton
confided that she had used the fundraiser as an excuse to sneak out to
see Chelsea.
Presumably, she sneaked out on Chelsea to go raise some soft funds.
Maybe it's just me, but if I were one of the most powerful parents on
the planet, I don't think I'd look for an excuse to she my child, and
when I got there, I wouldn't leave to go do something that I've been
campaigning to eliminate.
Return to Table of Contents.
There's an old postulate that the half-life of any flame-war on
Usenet is the time it takes for one side to liken the other to Hitler.
Be that as it may, it was still interesting to hear famed (or
infamous to those on the left) radio talk show caller, and now
cohost of The Right Perspective on WVNJ 1160-AM in
Oakland, New Jersey, make his own comparison.
For instance, did you know:
Sound like any party you know?