Shaving With Occam's Razor
Read the article this discussion is about
- JoelG
- JoelG
- JeredWM
- Gottlieb
- JeredWM
- JoelG
- JoelG
- SteveK
- JoelG
- JeredWM
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
» JoelG - Jason: <i>treason and murder, Joel? You're reaching here...<
Jason:treason and murder, Joel? You're reaching here...
1. I said the possibility of treason and murder. While I personally am firmly convinced, I do not accuse him directly of being anything more than a scumbag, which even Steve admits.
2. No, I am not reaching. a) Treason. Take a look here, at an article in today's Washington Post (certainly no conservative rag). Or CNN. The facts of the case is that Clinton allowed the sale of missle technology in return for large campaign donations. That is called treason. Somehow, I'm sure Clinton will slip through yet another scandal; nevertheless, the facts are not in question.
b) Murder. I personally have no proof. However, the sheer number of dead bodies strewn over the landscape who were connected to the Clintons is overwhelming. Many murderers have been convicted on far less damning circumstantial evidence than that. Tell me, Jason. How many people do you personally know who have died violent deaths that were not vehicle-related? I personally know one person who committed suicide or died a suspicious death. Not so, the Clintons. Depending on the list you go by, it rises past 50.
Really, the insurance industry ought to offer a "Clinton proximity" policy. Nope, they're probably too smart for that. Bad risk.
/Joel Gehman
-- posted by JoelG
» JoelG - Jason: Oh, I almost forgot this: <i>an investigation of 4
Jason:Oh, I almost forgot this:
an investigation of 4 years and $40 million (of our tax money) speaks for this.
The four years is almost true. The $40 million is way overstated. You shouldn't trust the media.
Compared with the Iran/Contra investigation, Starr's investigation is short, cheap, and has produced far more results, in terms of convictions. Nevertheless, you won't find me supporting Starr...he's way too milquetoast an investigator. He has let far too many opportunities and lines of inquiry slip away.
/joel
-- posted by JoelG
» JeredWM - Joel: Perhaps you could provide sources both for the "real" c
Joel:Perhaps you could provide sources both for the "real" cost of the Starr investigation and the "real" cost of the Iran-Contra investigation? Also, remember to count only the independent counsel investigation cost of Iran-Contra, not the Senate investigation cost. Otherwise, you're comparing proverbial (if cliche) apples and oranges.
-- posted by JeredWM
» Gottlieb - Joel, when I said you were reaching, I underestimated the amount
Joel, when I said you were reaching, I underestimated the amount by which you were.1. You first assert that the "facts" of the matter are Clinton traded missile technology for campaign donations. In truth, however:
- there is no evidence Clinton knew where that money was coming from, since it was being filtered through legitimate businessmen, and as soon as he found out that there was even a remote possibility it was tainted, he gave it all back
- the "missile technology" you speak of was a trade that has been on the table for years; probably from before Clinton was even running for election, much less re-election. Trading missile tech to potential adversaries isn't something the government decides overnight.
2. You then assert that Clinton is probably guilty of murder, just because people he knows have died from things other than old age. Your "proof" for this is that you don't know a single person like that yourself.
Joel, the man is the President of the United States. He knows a few more people than you do. And given that people do die, that people do commit suicide, it stands to reason that someone who knows literally tens of thousands of people would know some of the casualties. Blaming Clinton for their deaths would be like blaming you because a high school classmate of yours committed suicide. And if we spent $40 million to investigate you, I am certain we could come up with some salacious details.
3. You assert that the Starr investigation hasn't been $40 million, and that I shouldn't trust the media. Tell me, Joel, why should I trust you? You think the President of the United States is guilty of murder and treason, despite the fact that a 4 year independent counsel hasn't even been able to convince a grand jury that Clinton had sex (which should be like trying to convince people that bears defecate in the woods).
Why is your unfounded and unevidenced assertion more credible than the researched and cross-reviewed information of CNN?
PS Quick question for Mr Siegel, if he is listening: Joel asserts that "Many murderers have been convicted on far less damning circumstantial evidence than that." Since I won't take Criminal Law until the fall, perhaps you could offer your opinion as to how many folks are convicted of murder on purely circumstantial evidence?
Jason Gottlieb
Politics -- East Asia...This week: Philippine Elections
My homepage
-- posted by Gottlieb
» JeredWM - Jason: I'm not Mr. Siegel, and I'm not a lawyer, but people <
Jason:I'm not Mr. Siegel, and I'm not a lawyer, but people do get convicted of murder on purely circumstantial evidence fairly often. Remember, fingerprints, blood evidence, and even the victim's relationship with the accused are all "circumstantial evidence." Basically anything which is not eyewitness testimony is "circumstantial evidence."
Now, whether anybody has ever been convicted on "less damning circumstantial evidence," I'll leave to the legal historians here.
-- posted by JeredWM
» JoelG - Jason - The White House, Loral, and the Chinese government are a
Jason - The White House, Loral, and the Chinese government are all saying that no influence was bought, even though it is plain that money has gone between them. (Some of which has been returned. However, they still got the benefit of it, by using it during the election. The fact that they are now returning much of it just turns it into an interest-free loan.)What I find truly ironic is that Steve is so quiet on this China issue. After all, isn't corporate influence-buying one of his main hobby-horses? He sees corporate influence everywhere, yet when his party and the champion of his party is accused, he dismisses it out of hand.
It strains credibility to believe that millions were given to the Democratic party by foreign powers with no desire for quid pro quo. And that really is the point of this whole thread, and the point of Frank's article: there is just too much circumstantial evidence damning this administration for a reasonable person to credit Clinton with innocence. The vast right wing conspiracy theory just doesn't cut it as an explanation.
/Joel
-- posted by JoelG
» JoelG - From the Federalist Brief. I found this particularly amusing.
From the Federalist Brief. I found this particularly amusing.´´I am pleased to sign into law S. 24, the reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act [that] ensures that no matter what party controls the Congress or the executive branch, an independent, nonpartisan process will be in place to guarantee the integrity of public officials and ensure that no one is above the law. Regrettably, this statute was permitted to lapse when its reauthorization became mired in a partisan dispute in the Congress. ... The independent counsel statute has been in the past and is today a force for government integrity and public confidence ... It is my hope that both political parties would stand behind those great objectives.´´ Bill Clinton reauthorizing the ICA on June 30, 1994, prior to his administration's achieving the distinction of being assigned seven ICs, all of whom are now being labeled "partisan" by the administration's spinners.
-- posted by JoelG
» SteveK - Joel: My writings here at Suite 101 clearly condemn Democrats
Joel:My writings here at Suite 101 clearly condemn Democrats as well as Republicans for taking the bribes of lobbyists. My following essay is proof:
The Betrayal of Democratic Representatives
I would point out only that corporations form about two-thirds of all lobbyists and that they give about three-fourths of their money to Republicans. Although Democrats are guilty, they are nowhere near as guilty as Republicans. For Republicans to criticize Democrats about the Chinese affair -- which is really quite minor, compared to Republican corruptions -- is like the Mountain calling the Molehill "dirty." It's a classic case of projection.
Steve Kangas
-- posted by SteveK
» JoelG - Jered - <i>Perhaps you could provide sources both for the "re
Jered -Perhaps you could provide sources both for the "real" cost of the Starr investigation...
Took me a while to find the reference, and then a good while to find which thread this question was in.
When Janet Reno appeared before a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Feb 24, she gave the floor to her assistant attorney general for administration, Stephen Colgate, who quoted the correct figure. "Our records from Mr. Starr through 11-30-97, the end of November '97, show that we have obligated for Mr. Starr $17,789,727 against this permanent and indefinite appropriation."
Far cry from the $40 million that his critics are saying he has spent. Again, as I asked in the labor union thread, why would the champions of justice and fairness need to lie? Hey, if there's $28 million laying around up there no one wants, can I have it?
/Joel
-- posted by JoelG
» JeredWM - Joel: I think that the $17 mil figure is a bit misleading, fo
Joel:I think that the $17 mil figure is a bit misleading, for two reasons. First, Starr isn't the only SP involved in this investigation. But second and more importantly, the $17 mil figure is probably only the amount Starr is required to report. He is not required to report all his expenses--FBI and other investigative legwork, for instance. (Estimates, but not exact figures, can be found in the GAO reports.)
Also, note that this was only as of Nov. '97; that was over six months ago. He stepped up his spending considerably through the first part of '98.
-- posted by JeredWM
« Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.