One gets convicted, the other

[bart]

Gets Elected


Similar situations, very different outcomes. One woman is convicted of obstruction of justice and securities fraud, and the other never even gets indicted. Many are asking why, or more appropriately, why not... Most agree that it is because one's husband was President of the United States when she was investigated.

Today, Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice and securities fraud, the exact same crimes that former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was accused of. Many have argued that a Clinton-friendly Justice Department let the felonies slide, fearful of retribution from The White House, while a less criminal friendly Justice Dept. under the Bush Administration has applied the law evenly.

One must wonder what would have happened if a Clinton Justice Department had been as aggressive as the Bush Justice Department if things like Enron and the several other bilkings of investors would have been detected when they were occurring, rather than after the fact. I guess we will never know.

 

[incubus]

Someone's been listening to rush limbaugh or his impersonaters.

 

[Timebuilder]

Hillary only avoided prosecution because she's

[SIZE=4 ]The Smartest Woman in the World! [/SIZE]

 

[BornAgainPagan]

bart

You're really reaching. "Convicted" and "accused" are two completely different words. Is that the best that talk radio can spoonfeed you?

 

[enigma]

Hillary only avoided prosecution because she's

[SIZE=4 ]The Smartest Woman in the World! [/SIZE]

"Don't worry Father, we have enough parachutes, the SMARTEST WOMAN IN THE WORLD just jumped out with my backpack".


If you know the joke, laugh. If you don't, well too bad.

enigma

 

[F70pilot]

Hillary only avoided prosecution because she's

[SIZE=4 ]The Smartest Woman in the World! [/SIZE]

Actually. that would be Marilyn Vos-Savant

 

[surplus1]

One woman is convicted of obstruction of justice and securities fraud, .

Your statement is not accurate. Ms. Stewart was not convicted of securities fraud.

It's OK for you to hate the Clintons if that turns you on, but your remarks are clearly biased.

Since you are asking questions and making inferences, I have one. Why hasn't the chief executive of Enron been indicted? Any chance it could be because of his very close ties to the current president and vice president?

When you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. If you like it better with a religious flavor, "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone."

 

[surplus1]

Enigma, I like your signature.

"Those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither."
Ben Franklin

I suggest you email it to J.Ashcroft, with a copy to GWB.

 

[enigma]

Enigma, I like your signature.

"Those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither."
Ben Franklin

I suggest you email it to J.Ashcroft, with a copy to GWB.

Roger that. Their actions concerning that ( and immigration and globalization) may well make me return to the Libertarian ticket. I'm sort of sitting the fence right now.

BTW, I consider that Franklin quote to pertain to citizens. I'm perfectly happy to force a person who has no national loyalty into things like profiling. If I travel to a foreign land, I expect to be regarded with suspicion and rightfully so, because my loyalties lie with the US, not with the country that I am visiting. They have the right to treat me with fewer rights than they do their own citizens. No, I don't get out of country much. If we don't have it here, I don't have much need for it.

regards,
enigma

 

[Timebuilder]

According to what I saw a few years ago, if you are Hillary Clinton, "accused" never becomes "convicted."

That is a big difference, indeed.

 

[BoDEAN]

Someone's been listening to rush limbaugh or his impersonaters.

Hail RUSH and HOWARD!

 

[surplus1]

You won't get much argument from me on profiling. If you know from whence the enemy comes, it makes no sense at all not to screen that source.

However, when you have the Justice Department and the FBI spying on Americans, infiltrating legitimate protestors who disagree with the current power holders, issuing supoenas to universities like Drake in places like Des Moines, Iowa for names of persons attending political conferences, arresting peacful protestors against war, etc., etc., you are infringing seriously and dangerously on the very freedoms that we are allegedly trying to defend. We don't need a return to McCarthyism. On the other hand, a little profiling might go a long way.

I have a problem when the administration wont give a visa to some poor black guy from a Carribean island but hands them out without a second thought to a Saudi that has a few bucks. Especially when we know for a fact that those "bucks" are educating religious fanatics all over the Middle East.

I don't get angry because the current government makes a mistake or happens to be stupid. I get angry when its self righteousness is a scam designed to promote and maintain its own political power but I drift, that's a different thread.

In the Stewart case, I have little doubt that if the government pursued the friends and contributors of the GOP who do the same thing, the prisons would overflow and 90% of America's corporate entities would be without executives. Stewart sold some stock when she got a tip from her broker that the CEO of the company was selling his. Maybe that is technically incorrect, but she did not defraud the stockholders of her own company or steal hundreds of millions of dollars from them. She saved herself about 50 grand by dumping a small block of stock. Hardly a crime that warrants 20 years in prison.

The government's persecution of this woman for a petty crime has cost the taxpayers 10 millions and the shareholders they pretend to protect hundreds of millions more than anything Martha ever did. The truth is her sale of a mere 250K worth of stock cost no one anything and harmed only herself. They have destroyed her for naught. It's a typical knee-jerk over reaction by a justice department run amok under the leadership of another republican nut case.

Roger that. Their actions concerning that ( and immigration and globalization) may well make me return to the Libertarian ticket. I'm sort of sitting the fence right now.

BTW, I consider that Franklin quote to pertain to citizens. I'm perfectly happy to force a person who has no national loyalty into things like profiling. If I travel to a foreign land, I expect to be regarded with suspicion and rightfully so, because my loyalties lie with the US, not with the country that I am visiting. They have the right to treat me with fewer rights than they do their own citizens. No, I don't get out of country much. If we don't have it here, I don't have much need for it.

regards,
enigma

 

[bart]

but she did not defraud the stockholders of her own company or steal hundreds of millions of dollars from them

You mean like Clinton's golfing buddy Steve Winnick? Look into the crimes this still friend of Bill Clinton's perpetrated. Just do a search on Global Crossing, bill Clinton and Steve Winnick and let me know what you get...

 

[Singlecoil]

"The Hunting of the President" by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons is a good read on this subject. Very carefully documented and researched as well.

 

[350DRIVER]

It's OK for you to hate the Clintons if that turns you on, but your remarks are clearly biased.

Enough said, sometimes I really have to scratch my head and wonder where he can pull this stuff from. Just a tad mind boggling.


3 5 0

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

One must wonder what would have happened if a Clinton Justice Department had been as aggressive as the Bush Justice Department if things like Enron and the several other bilkings of investors would have been detected when they were occurring, rather than after the fact. I guess we will never know.

That's a classic line. Considering that Enron has given more money to GWB than John Kerry has received from lobbyists his entire career, I really doubt this administration will ever come down very hard on Enron or more specifically Ken Lay. What a joke. The Bush administration kicking some butt on Enron, Sure...........


Mr. I.

 

[bart]

Mr Irrelevant,

Thank you for living up to your name. Who was in charge of law enforcement in this country WHEN THE CRIMES WERE COMMITTED? How do you explain Clinton playing golf with Gary Winnick after what he did to Global Crossing? Please, let us know...

In the meantime:

I will find the data that proves you absolutely wrong on Bush recieving more money from Enron than Kerry has recieved from all special interest groups.

 

[bart]

President Bush's PAC recieved a total of $166,000 from Enron and its executives. Meanwhile, this year alone, Mr. Kerry's Citizen Soldier Fund PAC attracted soft-money contributions of $230,500 from the communications/electronics business sector; $279,700 from lawyers and lobbyists; and $456,000 from the finance/insurance/real-estate (FIRE) business sector.

So Mr Irrelevant, now we know how you got your name...

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Incredible. You blame Clinton for the crimes of other people committed when he was President. That is the exact same thing as solely blaming Bush for the attacks on 9/11. I don't believe it is logical.

Bush is too close to Ken Lay to ever push for his prosecution.

That you ended your response with an insult is no surprise to anyone on this board.

I'll look for some data also. And not just from this year. But Bush's entire career in politics.


Mr. I.

 

[rettofly]

Incredible. You blame Clinton for the crimes of other people committed when he was President. That is the exact same thing as solely blaming Bush for the attacks on 9/11. I don't believe it is logical.

Bush is too close to Ken Lay to ever push for his prosecution.

That you ended your response with an insult is no surprise to anyone on this board.

I'll look for some data also. And not just from this year. But Bush's entire career in politics.


Mr. I.

Let me see if I have this right. Clinton should not be blamed for ignoring criminal activity that took place during the Clinton administration, but Bush is too close to the perps to push for their prosecution for crimes ignored by the Clinton administration.

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

Give me a break!