Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (39972)	9/9/2005 9:35:17 PM
From: paret	Respond to of 90947

TED KENNEDY'S PRIVATE PARTS: PART I By Ann Coulter Thu Sep 1, 6:21 PM ET Sen. Teddy Kennedy has demanded that the Bush administration waive attorney-client privilege and release internal memos John Roberts worked on while in the solicitor general's office 15 years ago, all of which were supposed to be held in the deepest confidence. Apparently, Kennedy thinks public officials have no right to keep even their attorney-client communications secret. This surprised me because the senator is such a strong advocate of the (nonexistent) "right to privacy." And not just in the way most drunken, Spanish quiz-cheating, no-pants-wearing public reprobates generally cherish their own personal right to privacy. I mean privacy in the abstract. I know as much about the "right to privacy" as I know about any other made-up, nonexistent right, but I would have thought that any "right to privacy" would protect confidential attorney-client conversations at least as much as, say, abortions in public buildings. But I'll have to defer to the expert. Consequently, applying the principle even-handedly to members of the executive branch as well as the legislative branch, I demand that Kennedy immediately waive all attorney-client privilege relating to his communications with his lawyer after he drove Mary Jo Kopechne off the bridge at Chappaquiddick. It's time to clear up, once and for all, the many questions that have swirled around Kennedy since Chappaquiddick. Oops -- "swirled" may have been a poor choice of words there. How about "floated"? Nope. "Surfaced"? Oooh -- even worse, in terms of irony. "Come to light"? OK, now I'm just being obtuse. "Beset"? Yes, that's better. Youth is no defense. John Roberts was 26 years old when he wrote the documents that Kennedy demands on behalf of the Senate. Kennedy was 36 when he drove Mary Jo Kopechne off a bridge. If the Senate needs to know what Roberts thought about the law at age 26, then the Senate certainly needs to know what Kennedy thought about the law at age 36, when he drowned a girl and then spent the rest of the evening concocting an alibi instead of calling the police. This isn't a "rehash" of Chappaquiddick; it's never been hashed. The Senate needs to know whether Kennedy was guilty of manslaughter. How else can the Senate be expected to carry out its constitutional duty to expel Kennedy unless Kennedy makes these key documents available? We'll pick them up in the same van we send to collect John Kerry's military records and Bill Clinton's medical records. While we wait, here's my guess as to what those attorney-client conversations sounded like, based on the facts in Leo Damore's book "Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-Up": Interview with client Teddy Kennedy, July 19, 1969: Teddy: May I approach the bench? Lawyer: It's not a bench, Teddy. It's my desk. And no, you can't have another Chivas Regal. Teddy: (Hiccup) Lawyer: Let's start at the beginning. Teddy: I'm going to say you were driving. Lawyer: No, you are not saying I was driving. Teddy: OK, someone in your family was driving. Lawyer: They weren't even in Massachusetts that week. Can we move on? Why didn't you call the police after the accident, Teddy? Teddy: I had to protect my political career, obviously. But this wasn't just about me! I was thinking about future drunk, philandering U.S. senators who may or may not have just drowned some chick they met at a party. Lawyer: But what about Mary Jo -- Teddy: Yes, precisely! How would it look if I, a United States senator, were driving off to a secluded beach at midnight with a beautiful, nubile female after a private party? How would that look? Lawyer: But Mary Jo was still alive for two hours -- Teddy: Did I mention my wife was pregnant? You think I should have reported the accident now, Mr. Smartypants? Lawyer: She was trapped in that car, struggling to breathe! Teddy: Do you know that two of my brothers were assassinated? Lawyer: She was still alive! You could have saved her! Teddy: Yeah, and say goodbye to my presidential ambitions. There was the future of the country to consider -- as well as the future of the Chivas Regal company and all their employees. I am a Kennedy. I have a divine right to the presidency. I had to put that ahead of my lawyer's conscience. Anyway, Mary Jo was driving. Lawyer: Teddy, we can't say Mary Jo was driving. Teddy: What if some phony witness claimed that the driver stopped to ask for directions. Wouldn't that prove it was a woman driving? Lawyer: But what about the witnesses? Teddy: We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Hey, what's so funny? Did I just say something funny? To be continued ...

To: Carolyn who wrote (39972)	9/9/2005 9:35:54 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

John Roberts was 26 years old when he wrote the documents that Kennedy demands on behalf of the Senate. Kennedy was 36 when he drove Mary Jo Kopechne off a bridge. If the Senate needs to know what Roberts thought about the law at age 26, then the Senate certainly needs to know what Kennedy thought about the law at age 36, when he drowned a girl and then spent the rest of the evening concocting an alibi instead of calling the police.

To: Carolyn who wrote (39972)	9/10/2005 12:35:01 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Newsweek: Karl Rove May Have Used Q’uran, Toilet In Same Sentence Washington—In a swirl of intrigue that threatens to engulf the entire beltway, Newsweek magazine say they have uncovered evidence that GOP strategist, Karl Rove, may have uttered the word “toilet” in a “general, verbal proximity” to the word “Q’uran.” “This revelation not only threatens to light up the whole Arab street,” said one Newsweek insider, “but the White House has to be exceedingly nervous about this.” Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts—a noted expert in the anachronistic submersion of objects—said the situation “could manifest itself gravely” for the GOP. “Even though we have no proof that Karl Rove engaged in the acts chronicled in the previous fictitious Newsweek story, the simple fact that the allegations, broad as they may be, raise more questions than they answer,” he said. “The brazen use of terms sensitive to the world’s most peaceful religion is worthy of investigation.” Kennedy also emphasized the governmental resolve to find answers. “I don’t care if we have to dredge the nearest river, we’re going to get to the bottom of this,” said Kennedy. GOP insiders scoffed at Kennedy’s posturing. “As soon as Ted tells us what color upholstery was under Mary Jo’s fingernails, we’ll send Karl Rove out to address the nation,” said one.