I'm getting a little insulted that no Democratic prosecutor has indicted me. Liberals bring trumped-up criminal charges against all the most dangerous conservatives. Why not me?
Democrat prosecutor Barry Krischer has spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to find some criminal charge to bring against Rush Limbaugh. Political hack Ronnie Earle spent three years and went through six grand juries to indict Tom DeLay. Liberals spent the last two years fantasizing in public about Karl Rove being indicted. Newt Gingrich was under criminal investigation for 3 1/2 years back in the '90s when liberals were afraid of him. Final result: No crime.
And of course, everybody cool in the Reagan administration was indicted. Or at least investigated and persecuted. Reagan's sainted attorney general Ed Meese was criminally investigated for 14 months before the prosecutor announced that he didn't have anything (but denounced Meese as a crook anyway).
I note that nobody ever wanted to indict Bob Dole or Gerald Ford (except, of course, other Republicans).
In the Nixon administration, liberals even brought "Deep Throat" up on charges and he was one of you people! What, now I'm not even as hip as "Deep Throat"?
I've done a lot for my country. I think I deserve to be indicted, too. How am I supposed to show my face around Washington if I haven't been "frog-marched" out of my office by some liberal D.A. looking to move to D.C. for the next Democratic administration? What's a girl have to do to become a "person of interest" around here? Mr. Krischer, where do I go to get rid of my reputation?
Barry Krischer has been going around calling El Rushbo a criminal for more than two years but has yet to bring any charges. Last month, Krischer's assistant, James Martz, told the court that his office has "no idea" if Limbaugh has even committed a crime. I'm no lawyer hey, wait a minute, yes I am! but it sounds like maybe Krischer's maid has been out scoring him stupid pills again.
These liberals are fanatics about privacy when it comes to man-boy sex and stabbing forks into partially-born children. But a maid alleges that she bought Rush Limbaugh a few Percodans, and suddenly the government has declared a war on prescription painkillers.
Liberals are more optimistic about the charges against Tom DeLay than they are about the charges against Saddam Hussein and the only living things Tom DeLay ever exterminated were rats and bugs.
In the remaining money-laundering case against DeLay, the prosecutors have acknowledged that they cannot produce the actual list of candidates who allegedly gained from the purported money-laundering scheme. But they hope to introduce a facsimile cobbled together from someone's memory.
In other words, during Rathergate, the case against the president consisted of a faked memo, whereas the case against Tom DeLay consists of an imaginary one.
Charges like these are not brought at random. They are brought against people who pose the greatest threat to liberals. (What am I? Miss Congeniality?)
The only difference between the Stalin-era prosecutions also enthusiastically defended by liberals and these prosecutions is that it's possible to get acquitted here. But the validity of the charges is about the same.
The only way to stop the left's criminalization of conservatism is to start indicting liberals.
It wasn't calm persuasion that convinced liberals the independent counsel law was a bad idea. It was an independent prosecutor investigating Bill Clinton (who actually was a felon!).
It wasn't logical argument that got them to admit that sometimes women do lie about sexual harassment. It was half a dozen women accusing Bill Clinton of groping, flashing or raping them.
It wasn't the plain facts that got liberals to admit that, sometimes, "objective" news reports can be biased. It was the appearance of Fox News Channel.
Can't we rustle up a right-wing prosecutor to indict Teddy Kennedy for Mary Jo Kopechne's drowning? Unlike the cases against Limbaugh and DeLay, Mary Jo's death was arguably a crime, and we could probably prove it in court. "
Heh pretty funny piece. But seriously... whats up with the charges on Delay. Anyone actually think he is going to get convicted?
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
He definitely could. My gut feeling wold put the odds at 35-40%
As for Psycho Girl's screed - my reply would be: Because you're not an official figure and no-one cares what you do. Go eat something. Maybe it'll calm your harpie-like attitude long enough to get a date...
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Lew, I honestly don't know. It depends on the entirety of the evidence, which so far hasn't been made public -- and whether or not the guy will get a fair trial (from either perspective). I think there's enough smoke here that we're pretty clearly looking at a fire, especially since both Delay and some of the other parties have bragged about doing almost exactly the same things he's been indicted for doing, but that's not the same thing as being able to prove to the law's satisfaction that there's fire, unfortunately. Justice is not only blind, but often headless.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
I can't wait for her article about the Stalin-era prosecutions against Randy "Duke" Cunningham.
Except that she probably tossed that in the trash already.
As far as Delay, who knows? Unlike Ann, I am not all-knowing, and do not know exactly what evidence they have against them. It was enough for a grand jury, but only after a trial will we know everything. And even then, most opinions differ (as in the O.J. Simpson trial).
Most of the time our justice system works, but sometimes it doesn't. So making predictions is never a sure thing.
Now, if you want to know if I think he should be convicted...
[ December 18, 2005, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
Actually, I found this article to be pretty funny.
IP: Logged |
From the indictments filed, I'd have to say no. Since the dependency of money laundering charges depends upon the statute of Texas law that would have made it money laundering. Unfortunately for the prosecutor, the charge that Delay was breaking the Texas election law has been dropped because the law wasn't even passed when the aledged crime was committed. So that makes the concept that the Delay was breaking Texas law to funnel money pretty much a moot point.
The real point to the entire indictment was simply to allow Delay to be hoisted on his own House Rules Petard. It worked. I expect the judge to rule on the money laundering charge sometime in January, and likely it will be just as the first ruling, the indictment is without legal merit. But as a political force, and even as a political candidate in his home district, Delay is ruined and it will take an act of God to allow him to stay in office.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
So, in fact, the Democrats won with "Death by Indictment". I thought they were the "morally superior" party?
IP: Logged |