SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (10526)10/3/2003 5:25:47 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793719
 
The Times notes the calls for Ashcroft to recuse himself.

I am "shocked, shocked," that the Times would do that. They are really pissed that the Post beat them on this.



To: JohnM who wrote (10526)10/3/2003 6:49:06 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793719
 
"Ah, yes, you remember him well." :>)
____________________________________

chatterbox
Larry Klayman for Senate?
America's most litigious Clinton-hater mounts the hustings.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 2:09 PM PT

Earlier this week, Chatterbox mentioned in passing that Larry Klayman, the polymorphously litigious chairman and founder of Judicial Watch, had recently stepped down "to pursue other endeavors." Klayman, the prototype for Harry Claypool on The West Wing, spent the 1990s litigating on behalf of as many of Bill Clinton's sex accusers as he could find. Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Dolly Kyle Browning were all Judicial Watch clients. Klayman was very possibly the only human being ever to formulate the thought that Robert Ray, the final independent counsel on Whitewater, did a rush job on his final Monicagate report. Judicial Watch also went long on Filegate, Chinagate, and the Wen Ho Lee affair. More recently, Klayman filed suit against Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban, and the (now former) government of Iraq; Dick Cheney's secret energy task force; Richard Perle; Jacques Chirac; and the Dalai Lama. OK, he didn't sue the Dalai Lama. But Klayman did once sue his own mother (over who would pay nursing bills for his deceased grandmother).

Chatterbox speculated that Klayman quit Judicial Watch because he could no longer endure the cognitive dissonance of filing an endless stream of petty lawsuits while crusading against the evils of litigation. As usual, Chatterbox underestimated his man. The real reason Klayman left was to run for the United States Senate, where he pledges to "watch over Hillary Clinton's shoulder, expose her, and to stop her liberal agenda dead in it's [sic.] tracks. With Larry Klayman in the Senate, Hillary Clinton is more likely to wind up in the Big House, not the White House."

Klayman is running for the Florida seat that may or may not be vacated by presidential candidate Bob Graham. The overarching campaign theme is to carry Clinton-hatred into the next decade. Klayman doesn't work very hard to deny this. Opposition to Clinton is "not the only reason" he's running, he told Chatterbox, but "it's a reason. She's the head of the Democratic party." (This will be a rude shock to Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Tom Daschle, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and the 10 people competing for the presidential nomination.) Klayman's campaign Web site elaborates various policy pledges: lowering taxes, combating abortion, cutting government spending, prosecuting corporate criminals, and democratizing Cuba. But these are trees, not the forest. All but three of Klayman's 10 position papers manage to work in the name "Clinton."

For Chatterbox, though, there's only issue in the Larry Klayman campaign, and it isn't the Clintons. If elected, will he pledge not to file any lawsuits for the next six years? "Categorically, no," Klayman said. Will he pledge not to sue anybody for the duration of his Senate campaign? "No. Look, it's a free country." Here's Chatterbox's suggested campaign slogan: "Vote for me … or I'll sue!"

Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate.

Article URL: slate.msn.com



To: JohnM who wrote (10526)10/3/2003 7:23:35 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793719
 
"Another Watergate" and "Quagmire Lust." Two conditions a lot of the left is suffering from right now. I know the Plume affair is all "PoMo," but from a legal standpoint, it looks like the leaker gets off.
_______________________________

JAMES TARANTO, "BEST OF THE WEB."

Is She Covert?
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations notes a key limitation in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the 1982 law that Robert Novak's sources supposedly violated by revealing that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA: An employee of an intelligence agency is a "covert agent" for the purposes of the statute only if he "is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." This makes sense; after all, the CIA isn't supposed to spy in the U.S.

Does Plame qualify? It's not entirely clear, for both the CIA and her publicity-hungry husband, Joseph Wilson, have revealed little about her professional history. But here's what we do know:

According to Wilson's biography on the Web site of the Saudi-funded Middle East Institute, which lists him as a "media resource," his last overseas assignment, as political adviser to the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces in Europe, ended in 1997, six years ago. (Wilson's bio, by the way, lists his wife's supposedly secret maiden name.)

Yesterday the Washington Post reported that Wilson and Plame have three-year-old twin sons.

Maureen Dowd reports that Wilson and Plame met at a Washington cocktail party six years ago.
Wilson's bio says he worked for President Clinton as a special assistant between June 1997 and July 1998, which means he was based in Washington when he met Plame. If their kids are three years old, they would have been born in 1999 or 2000, and it seems reasonable to surmise that she was not stationed overseas as an expectant or new mother. If she has been stationed overseas during the past five years, then, the Wilson-Plame romance would have to have been a long-distance one at least during its first two years. So far as we are aware, no one has asserted that it was.

opinionjournal.com