SHOOTING ELEPHANTS IN A BARREL
 

SHOOTING ELEPHANTS IN A BARREL
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/2007030...hantsinabarrel
*A brilliant article which contrasts the treatment DAs give democrats vs the treatment they give republicans.

My favorite example of DA Barry E. Krischer subjecting Rush Limbaugh to a three-year criminal investigation for allegedly buying prescription drugs illegally to treat chronic back pain. And yet in 2006, Democrat and major Clinton contributor Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in Palm Beach for hiring of local underage schoolgirls for sex.

The police gave Limbaugh prosecutor Krischer evidence which included videotaped statements of the following people: five of Epstein's alleged victims, the pimp of the girls (who compared herself to Heidi Fleisch), and 16 other witnesses. But the same prosecutor who spent three years investigating Limbaugh's alleged misuse of back-pain pills refused to bring statutory rape charges against a Clinton contributor. Krischer only charged Epstein with a single count of solicitation of prostitution. The police who had spent MONTHS investigating were fuming when Eptein walked after hours of negotiations with Krischer.

Chief Reiter was so surprised by Krischer’s handling of this case he stated Krischer's were actions "highly unusual” and that he should disqualify himself from the prosecution of the case (Palm Beach Post). Krischer decided to see the case through..... One could claim that Epstein got off because he is a billionaire that can afford the best attorneys but so can Rush Limbaugh). The amount of energy Krischer spent on Limbaugh versus Epstein is enough to make my point.... So which case is more imported to a community, a man solicitating underage girls for sex or a man who is addicted to pain pills? Hmmmmmmmm..... Close call....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...702045_pf.html
In a Robert Novak column he wrote:
Actually, in my first interview with Fitzgerald after he was named special prosecutor, he indicated that he knew Armitage was my leaker. I assumed that was the product of detective work by the FBI. In fact, Armitage had turned himself in to the Justice Department three months before Fitzgerald entered the case, without notifying the White House or releasing me from my requirement of confidentiality.

Fitzfong knew Armitage was the leaker 3 months before Fitzfong was assined the case. I suppose Bush43 was extremely confident that by approving an independent prosecutor that the Plame issue would be quickly dealt with. Instead Fitzfong spends a couple of years chasing tangents which yielded ZERO crimes.....except for an alledged perjury. Fitzfong is a liar. Why? He claims that the revealing of Plame's name was a crime and yet he does not prosecute Armitage (Wilson's buddy). Novak writes,

"In fact, her being classified -- that is, that her work was a government secret -- did not in itself meet the standard required for prosecution of the leaker (former deputy secretary of state Armitage) under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That statute limits prosecution to exposers of covert intelligence activities overseas, whose revelation would undermine U.S. intelligence. That is why Fitzgerald did not move against Armitage."

One poster on 2+2 claimed Armitage was given "immunity' but this never happen..... Technically, Armitage never committed a crime and he needed no immunity.

Re: SHOOTING ELEPHANTS IN A BARREL
 

Was a new batch of kool-aid recently released?

Re: SHOOTING ELEPHANTS IN A BARREL
 

Interesting title choice. The elephant is the symbol of which party again?

I'd like to see you rail about the slimeball politicos sneaking in yet another last minute provision to install US attorneys without congressional oversight, then firing a bunch without cause.

Anybody who claims the republicans have higher ethics is 100% full of [censored].

Re: SHOOTING ELEPHANTS IN A BARREL
 

Look I didn't bother to read the Ann Coulter article, please link objective sources and get back to us.

Re: SHOOTING ELEPHANTS IN A BARREL
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who claims the republicans have higher ethics is 100% full of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the claim was that the unethical are treated according to different standards, not that one party is more or less ethical than the other.

Does Silence = Liberal Acceptance of the Premise?
 

Does Silence = Liberal Acceptance of the Premise?
Lets not forget CONGRESSMAN Kennedy he runs off the road, gets picked by campus police, and slurs that he is going to a Congressional vote at 2am in the morning). The supervisor orders to cops to drive him home. Then Kennedy checks into rehab. If it were a Repub, he would get the Rush Limbaugh treatment.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...ent/index.html

Re: Does Silence = Liberal Acceptance of the Premise?
 

Actually, no. He just used a little loophole that is available to both Rethuglican and Democrat congressmen.

Of course, when Republicans get caught, they just change parties:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblo...nced-thumb.jpg

Re: Does Silence = Liberal Acceptance of the Premise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
he would get the Rush Limbaugh treatment.


[/ QUOTE ]

Drug diversion? (essentially what Rush 'got') ($30,000 fine, an eighteen month therapy regimen with his physician, not own a firearm and must continue to submit to random drug testing and no record)

Elephant
 

[ QUOTE ]
The elephant is the symbol of which party again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends. Is the elephant wearing an orange jumpsuit ?

Re: SHOOTING ELEPHANTS IN A BARREL
 

These kinds of OPs wouldn't be tolerated if iron were alive.