"... who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy."
Writes Orin Kerr.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
147 comments:
Orin Kerr does not understand history correctly. There is no need to read past the first sentence, is there?
Apparently, no one is immune.
Clinton was lying to beat a lawsuit and sex just happened to be the topic. That fixed, about the rest I think "SFW" covers it.
Maybe illicit sex at the highest levels of government is like making your bones in the mafia so they always have a way to put the screws to you.
Lewiinwky's status as 21-year old intern makes Clinton's actions: (1) more sleazy and (2) within the realm of employment -based sexual harassment (power differential) that Dems constantly harp on.
No, he was impeached for lying under oath while being investigated for sexual harassing Paula Jones.
Good lord, do Liberals ever stop lying?
Hiding a sexual affair is not a crime, at least in the US. (It would be different in the lands of Islam.) Lying about a sexual affair is sometimes a crime, depending on who the lie is told to and whether the lie is material in the circumstances.
If Orin Kerr is trying to understand the history of powerful men having a sexual affair, he's going to wind up with an endless narrative. Power attracts and it corrupts. Not much news there. But Kerr was just having some fun.
More interesting is the fact that Kerr's history begins with a powerful man with a long track record of sexually predatory conduct who lied under oath about a recent episode of such predatory conduct but wasn't prosecuted, and ends with a formerly powerful man with decades-old episodes of sexually predatory conduct who lied to a gov't agent and is now being prosecuted.
There is a simple answer. Elect only eunuchs.
Rcoean and all above are factually and legally correct, but the libs have captured the narrative through their spin, deception and media reach. Therefore many people think that is the case.
Libs don't want to be bothered by the facts and the law.
Hastert was always suspect in my mind simply because he was the product of the Illinois Republican Party which forced out Peter Fitzgerald who was clean and was up for re-election. Instead, they chose Jack Ryan who had a skeleton in his closet and that resulted in the election of Barack Obama.
It troubles me that a Federal charge over withdrawing one's own money (clerical issues)turns into a disclosure (by DOJ leak) of an alleged sex crime by a Republican.
Why no state charge? No complaining witness? Was this extortion? If it is true he should go to jail, but this is a circuitous route.
He doesn't recall history correctly. He establishes the present based on rumors and innuendo. Principles have become so passe in a liberal society where unprincipled individuals rise to the top.
Can you just imagine if Clinton did what Hastert did?
I give Hastert credit. His payouts were the most generosity a Republican has shown to the children of America in a long time. Any kid would be happy to have his school lunch and early childhood education and daycare funding cut in exchange for that much cash and sexy fun times with Denny "Happy" Hastert!
And they say Republicans aren't thinking about the children. But clearly here we can see there's reason to disagree.
Mission accomplished. As Paddy O wrote this morning on the earlier Hastert thread -
"Even if the way he was charged raises some questions, the reason he is being thrown into the spotlight now is so everyone talks about him. Bill and Hillary maximize their corruption by making sure everyone talks about the mud on other people. "
Whether or no Kerr has his History correct is truly beside the point. The DoJ leaker has released the squirrel. All that matters is whether or not enough people chase it. It's the chase that matters, not the facts.
Contrary to the Narrative, I have a theory that the Impeachment of Clinton actually did help the GOP. Here's how:
If you recall, in 1998, the Dems and the Media closed ranks to protect Clinton, and he beat the rap, and had a good showing in the midterms. The general narrative was that although Clinton had low personal approval ratings, the general public approved his presidency and his policies.
As the 2000 campaign embarked, the question for Al Gore was whether to embrace Clinton (flaws and all) or not. Gore chose not - he chose as his running mate Sen Joe Lieberman, the ONLY Dem Senator to criticize Clinton for his personal foibles. The clear unmistakeable message Gore sent was that he cutting Clinton off, and going to win it on his own. The clear lingering inference was that Clinton was a net political liability. This hurt Clinton's reputation (but only temporarily).
Of course, Gore, famously, then lost the squeaker to Bush. The new adjusted narrative was that Gore had bet wrong. He should have embraced Clinton in the campaign. Had he done so, Gore would have won. Clinton's reputation was enhanced and cemented.
So, the GOP impeachment did nothing to curtail Clinton's presidency or his legacy, but it caused Gore to make an unforced tactical error at a critical juncture (not embracing Clinton) which lead to Gore's own defeat, and the consequent rise of George W Bush, which greatly helped the GOP (at least temporarily).
Anyway, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it:)
Hastert was just demonstrating that there is no "free lunch" in America. His affections were a function of the free market, the way Republicans think it's supposed to work. In exchange for free education and all that cash, Hastert required something of the kids. This is normal according to Republican thinking. They are against welfare; so the kids were put into a "workfare" program. Some may say it's wrong because it's underage and akin to prostitution, but Republicans understand the moral superiority of incentives. Otherwise, the kids would have grown up thinking they can just get $3.5 million from someone in exchange for nothing?
I'm so glad we have Republicans running the show and teaching this country about the economics of things.
The President was impeached for lying under oath. What he lied about was and remains immaterial. As, the Feds are alleging, with Hastert.
In 2012 Newton Gingrich made the case in his presidential campaign that kids should be forced into janitorial work by cleaning their own schools, or else they might never learn to virtues of hard work and the value of the dollar.
Hastert was simply expanding on that theme.
I'm not shedding any tears for Dennis Hastert, or, frankly, any Congressman who gets hauled in front of a judge.
What I AM indignant about is the imbalance demonstrated when known, blatant thieves like Feinstein, Pelosi and Reid, who have stolen BILLIONs from some of America's most defenseless, go not only unprosecuted but celebrated.
Follow the power. The machine is doing its job. Media falling in line.
"Why no state charge? No complaining witness? Was this extortion?"
As if this is a serious legal matter.
Keep in mind that if Bill Clinton had been a young high school student, Denny Hastert might have paid to give a blow job to him.
It's important to remember that this is perfectly normal behavior from the Republican standpoint. As long as payment is made, that's all that matters. The economic laws of the universe have been fulfilled.
Patrick Fitzgerald is not "clean," Michael K., it was he that prosecuted Scooter Libby while knowing full well it was the State Department that "outed" Valerie Plame as a CIA "agent."
Half the Republicans on this thread are giving blow jobs to each other:
"My conspiracy theory will save us! No mine! I'll take one for Team Crazy by concocting an even more outlandish conspiracy! Somehow we will get through this! Let's all blame Democrats and jack each other off in our partisan self-righteousness!"
That's pretty much what Althouse runs around here. One big orgy of right-wing partisan self-righteousness.
Kids should do work in school, that is no joke, and shouldn't be.
R&B, do you have kids?
Having kids doesn't make you immune from abusing them, buwaya, but I'm sure there's other ways in which your comment is one of the dumbest on the thread so far.
R&B, I suspect you also don't know any Republicans personally.
Its easy for anyone to rage at anonymous strawmen on the internet, but this is a low amusement, beneath gentlemen.
In this Hastert thing, isn't it odd that the extortionist hasn't been charged?
Lol. Ok whatever.
Good day to you, fine chap.
@Hagar - you're confusing Senator Peter Fitzgerald with prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Both are from Illinois.
No, he was impeached for lying under oath while being investigated for sexual harassing Paula Jones.
Good lord, do Liberals ever stop lying?
^^^ This.
Having to raise kids is a most educational thing for all concerned. If you do have children, it doesn't take long to realize that they must be accustomed to work, and all it entails, for the sake if their character and future development.
Its easy to be flippant (as you are) if you have not had this obligation.
Poor Rythym and Balls. Garage or ARM can elicit many replies with a single comment. Over an hour in and nobody has taken the bait. Try harder.
"Plaintiff has a right to any and all information that established a pattern of sexual predatory behavior in the workplace on the part of the defendant"
Gee where did I read that from...? ;)
In short, if a woman accuses you of sexual discrimination or sexual harassment, her attorneys get to interview all the other women in the office to see if they too have been forced to "put out" to keep their job. If its consensual, the attorneys move on. If the women you lie about it, they investigate further to see if these women are being coerced to keep thier mouth shut about a non-consensual act.
Clinton was not impeached for lying about an affair. He was impeached for Obstruction of Justice and Subornation of Perjury.
Shorter short: Orin Kerr is a dishonest hack. Tar and feathers for him if the walls ever come down.
As for public argument and its proper tone -
Sincere arguments are properly pursued with passion, but with respect for ones interlocutors honor. This makes sarcasm a difficult weapon to use, as it almost always ends up insulting someone.
A devotion to sarcasm is a vice. Like pornography, it is a vice made easy and popular by the internet.
Diogenes of Sinope said...
In this Hastert thing, isn't it odd that the extortionist hasn't been charged?
Not if Hastert hasn't made a complaint, which he was obviously trying to avoid.
As for being a gentleman, this should be an aspiration for all men, whatever their station. In truth, proper behavior is not really limited by social class. Where I come from, courtesy is a universal standard, even for the poorest and the illiterate, and it was a common complaint of the commoners that the wealthy were especially rude. I have dealt with perfectly courteous bandits and kidnappers.
A great deal of trouble could be avoided in this country if that standard could be adopted.
FullMoon,
Perhaps it's because in these last couple of threads he's lapsed back into his "Ritmo" persona. Ritmo could fill a thread without anyone actually addressing him. We saw the same thing with Crack MC, except that other commenters were generally more interested in actually debating Crack.
"Can you just imagine if Clinton did what Hastert did?"
He'd be able to include NAMBLA in his extremely profitable speaking schedule.
A tsunami of 1999 equivalency straight out of the mind of The Hot Springs Kid. The message is that All Men being secret sexual predators, none should have judged Wolf Man Bill.
But what difference at this point does it make?
Very droll. Also very misleading: The Speaker has one vote in the House, and the lies were under oath and relevant to pending litigation and part of a pattern of obstruction of justice.
How quickly even the very bright (like Prof. Kerr) forget.
"Clinton lied about sex" is the big lie. #Irony
My apologies to Michael K. and Senator Fitzgerald.
(The names Fitzgerald and Illinois together do not have a good effect on me.)
"Patrick Fitzgerald is not "clean," Michael K., it was he that prosecuted Scooter Libby while knowing full well it was the State Department that "outed" Valerie Plame as a CIA "agent."
No, there are two and, while the Senator can be named for recommending the other for the job of US prosecutor, they are unrelated.
The Senator was a bit of a maverick but he was clean and is now a bank president.
Poor Rythym and Balls. Garage or ARM can elicit many replies with a single comment. Over an hour in and nobody has taken the bait. Try harder.
It's not "bait". I don't do that. I'm not into manipulation. I realize that might confuse guys like you but you'll save yourself time by accepting it as truth.
It's the fact that you fuckers have no defense.
I don't think Hastert was the victim of unlawful extortion. It is not illegal for someone who has a potentially valid legal claim to settle that claim short of filing a lawsuit. It happens all the time.
I've only heard of Orin Kerr. But if he makes a factual error so basic and glaring as rcocean points out at 11:58, why should anyone take him seriously as a scholar or as a historian?
I'd rather see this thread about Orin Kerr than Dennis Hastert. Lies need to be called before they turn to accepted fact.
Perhaps it's because in these last couple of threads he's lapsed back into his "Ritmo" persona. Ritmo could fill a thread without anyone actually addressing him. We saw the same thing with Crack MC, except that other commenters were generally more interested in actually debating Crack.
Yes, I know. It's not like you He-Men could slap yourselves on the back and give yourselves cheap debating trophies if it weren't for all the easily shot fish in the barrel provided by your preferred debate partners. Bullies are like that. They enter the ring welterweights and demand a match with the featherweights.
It's the fact that you fuckers have no defense.
@R&B: At Lem's blog you went on and on about Clinton's integrity, mauling and swiping at anyone who would dare impugn him. Why is that? So now are you going to defend an obvious factual error made by Orin Kerr?
The Volokh Conspiracy is a conservative blog.
But like myself, he has enough of a sense of humor to be able to laugh at "his own side" when they make themselves look stupid.
It looks like Denny Hastert has some legal problems. It’s apparently about sex. But he's actually accused of lying to the FBI. So is it sex or not? When sex was an issue with Bill Clinton we were told that everyone lies about sex. So his lie was all good. But Hastert lying about money withdrawals is evil. Well, it is illegal. But so is perjury and obstruction of justice. I'm getting confused who I'm supposed to be mad at.
Now we’re supposed to be upset that an old guy who’s long out of office was doing naughty things. What is it about wrestling coaches and women’s basketball coaches? And female teachers getting it on with their 14 year-old students. Any insights Ann? And all the women who had bad sex and later cried rape and have made a pretty good career out of carrying a mattress. Wait, let me read that Rolling Stone article again about the gang rape by UVA Greeks. There may be something there after all. Still, we can be grateful that all the sex acts we engaged in while younger are not on the front page. I wonder if Hastert raped anyone like Clinton did.
For many years, Christian social conservatives have equated gay sex with pedophilia.
Maybe now they can cite Dennis Hastert as an example.
What "integrity"? What does that even mean? Bill Clinton is manifestly not a pedophile. How much "integrity" does someone need to not be a pedophile? Do you even know what you're trying to say?
I think this is why Republicans fuck themselves up so much. Making everything about the eternally malleable idea of "character" and neglecting really big issues, like whether or not someone is fucking a bunch of high school kids under their tutelage. Do you guys ever get the point on anything?
The quality of the desperately idiotic comments on Lem's blog go like this: "Bill Clinton was in the same place at the same time with a 16-year old girl, ergo he raped her."
Ever been in the same place at the same time with a 16-year old, Chickie? Let's see where this goes.
Obviously there are tax consequences for both the victims.
That's all I really care about. Let's get their money into the treasury and pay off those Chinese loans.
Blogger sinz52 said...
For many years, Christian social conservatives have equated gay sex with pedophilia.
Maybe now they can cite Dennis Hastert as an example.
Gay sex and pedophilia aren't the same, and I'm a Christian social conservative. Neither is extra marital sex and gay sex, they too are two different things.
Where they share a similarity is, they are all three sinful and in need of the blood of Christ to cover those sins. When a liberal Democrat (But I repeat myself) hears this, they think it's being called the same thing.
Mostly because these liberal Democrats have all been taught in schools and colleges not to think for themselves and form complex thoughts. They think in black and white.
Very sad.
Rhythm and Balls said...
What "integrity"? What does that even mean? Bill Clinton is manifestly not a pedophile. How much "integrity" does someone need to not be a pedophile? Do you even know what you're trying to say?
I'm just wondering why you're so balls to the walls defensive about the Clintons--both of them--so suddenly. It's out of character for you.
Stop the presses. Some idiot put "integrity" within 5 words of "Bill Clinton."
Obviously, the account was hacked.
They're easy to defend against the disproportionate attacks levied by people who would defend/overlooks/ignore much worse - as long as it's on their own partisan side.
So that should just give you an idea of how much worse the alternatives - that certain of your pals prefer - happen to be.
I'm not arguing in a vacuum here.
Does Denny Hastert have to die for Bill Clinton's sins? I'm quite sure he isn't that big a Judas goat. I think we'll have to find someone else, someone anyone cares about.
Blogger FullMoon said...
Poor Rythym and Balls. Garage or ARM can elicit many replies with a single comment. Over an hour in and nobody has taken the bait. Try harder.
I was thinking the same thing. Then when buwaya responded I was going to tell him not to feed the trolls. But then, miraculously, the only response R&B had was to lol and then shut up. So, well played, buwaya, well played.
Now if Chicklit will just stop taking the bait.
Don't feed the trolls!
Hastert can deal with his own problems. I'm not interested in defending him. I would like to see the blackmailer named and charged because I think blackmail is wrong. I think he's being protected and I predict he'll be lionized by the usual suspects, especially if it turns out he's gay.
I am interested in pushing back at larger lies designed to impugn innocent people.
Now if Chicklit will just stop taking the bait.
Don't feed the trolls!
Oh, we've been doing this for years. But, I'll lay off if here if it bothers you.
Has anyone actually used the word "integrity" in the same sentence as the word "Clinton"? Their daughter has a degree in public health. That means she has been trained to run a bureaucracy, but she can't so much as bandage a skinned knee. The Clinton's are the 21st century equivalent of 18th French aristocrats.
I have a suggestion: let's make Marco Rubio the propitiator of Clinton's sins. Nancy Pelosi just accused him of being a bad Catholic for opposing gay marriage. It has all the ingredients: sex, gays, religion, a guy who's good looking so he has to be a pedophile/gay/closeted. Plus, he's in office and a Republican. I think we have a winner; he's bad to the bone.
Whatever eric. You're the dummy who actually thinks of adultery, gay sex and pedophilia as morally equivalent, and of America as a nation defined by its supposed need of the "blood of Christ" to atone for its sins. Are you one of those guys who believes Jesus and George Washington sat down together and wrote the Constitution?
Buwaya's comment was too ridiculous for anything other than an lol. It's the same reason I never respond seriously to any of the mindless lunacy that you post.
Bay Area Guy:
"I have a theory that the Impeachment of Clinton actually did help the GOP."
***
"[T]he GOP impeachment did nothing to curtail Clinton's presidency or his legacy, but it caused Gore to make an unforced tactical error at a critical juncture (not embracing Clinton) which lead to Gore's own defeat, and the consequent rise of George W Bush, which greatly helped the GOP (at least temporarily)."
---
I think Gore losing that election was the worst thing that ever happened to the GOP. Had Gore been elected, the 9/11 terrorist attack would have been blamed entirely on one party. But, because Bush had been in power for 9 months, the blame was spread around to both sides. I think if Gore had been president, 9/11 would still have happened as it did, and the Democrats would have been so severely harmed for a generation or more.
I would like to see the blackmailer named and charged because I think blackmail is wrong.
So does the state, assuming the blackmailed person complains to them about it. But the fact that Hastert didn't argues that he was ok with the arrangement.
I think he's being protected and I predict he'll be lionized by the usual suspects, especially if it turns out he's gay.
Lol are you confused. No one cares if he's gay. He's a former victim of the Right-Wing Sexquisitor in Chief. He doesn't need "protection" or "lionizing" as all that matters is that he should have never been abused.
I am interested in pushing back at larger lies designed to impugn innocent people.
You are so far out of whack on that that it's possible a visit to the tire shop might be the only last resort.
The one thing to always remember: Buckley understood history better than you and, like our host Althouse, Buckley documented.
I am a racist and I hate myself for it; all attempts at changing my nature having been unfruitfully confirmed.
Thank God all men are racist, not just me.
If Mortimer Bresney was awake, he blame it on Cecil Rhoades
eric said...
Don't feed the trolls!
The trolls here are the idiots comically attempting to minimize Hastert's malfeasance. To have one speaker of the house exposed as a sanctimonious hypocrite might be regarded as a misfortune, two looks like carelessness but three indicates deep flaws in the party and its philosophies.
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
eric said...
Don't feed the trolls!
The trolls here are the idiots comically attempting to minimize Hastert's malfeasance. To have one speaker of the house exposed as a sanctimonious hypocrite might be regarded as a misfortune, two looks like carelessness but three indicates deep flaws in the party and its philosophies.
Interesting. Do you apply this same reasoning to Islam? The Democrat party? How many governors of Illinois have gone down for corruption?
Or is this just a Republican thing?
Sanctimonious hypocrites in Congress? Next thing you'll be telling us is that water's wet.
"Contrary to the Narrative, I have a theory that the Impeachment of Clinton actually did help the GOP."
I don't think it really helped or hurt. Usually the off-year 2nd term Presidential election is a big loser for the Presidential party. 2006, 1974, 1958, 1966, 1986 are examples. 1998 really wasn't that bad for the Dems primarily because the Republicans had controlled Congress since 1994 and had no positive platform. They weren't in favor of anything Clinton wasn't for, and the Country was at peace and prosperous.
The impeachment was just a big yawn for the vast majority of Americans.
I have not seen anyone here either "minimizing what Hastert has done" or defending him, neither of which we can do, since we have no idea of exactly what he is being alleged to have done.
What we do object to is exactly that, and that Dennis Hastert has been destroyed by innuendo and rumor-mongering by "anonymice" originating in the United States Department of Justice, which reflects on all of us.
And we do think that the Federal "crimes" he actually is being charged with having committed, are a mere pretext to get innuendo and rumor-mill going.
On the rankings of sins - in general one can say that pedophilia trumps adultery as Christ specially condemns offenses against children in three Gospels, which trumps ordinary fornication, as adultery is not only a case of sexual misbehavior but also a violation of a sacrament and infidelity to ones spouse.
So if the rumors are correct Hastert has committed a greater sin, or sins, than Bill Clinton. On the other hand, there is the matter of a sinful nature, that is, if ones character has developed a habit of sin. So if it is the case that Clinton is not just an adulterer but an habitual adulterer (as he seems to be), he may be in a worse state than Hastert, assuming that Hastert has fallen just once and has restrained himself thereafter.
BTW, angry blog posts are venial sins, as are Titus and Lazlos sexual humor.
I think the best way to be content in one's mediocrity is to just declare oneself to be a natural sinner and be done with it.
Forget any interest in becoming a more compassionate, morally defensible creature.
Just be a sinner.
God will be killed for this opportunity. What a bargain! Wallow in your own moral mediocrity, and in exchange, God dies. How awesome.
And forget about using your mind to improve the lot of you or your fellow man. Using one's mind is anti-faith, which everyone knows is the bestest virtue ever.
Just sit back, relax, turn off your mind, have faith, and think about how awesome it is that beings more excellent than yourself will be tortured and killed for your sinfulness.
It's the new spiritual sado-masochism.
Some weird comments in this thread!
1. First, as always, we have garage mahal, trolling Republicans with his laughably false equivalency, "Can you imagine if Clinton did what Hastert did?" If in fact that had been the case, what I imagine is that the New York Times and The New Yorker would be finding ways to excuse it. And as ever, Hillary Clinton would be blaming Republicans for whatever happened.
2. Second, there are some commenters who accuse Republicans of "minimizing" what Hastert did. Who is doing that? Not me. Not any Republicans I can think of. I tend to think that perhaps something like this became known to insiders about Denny Hastert a long time ago and hence his long-ago departure for a private lobbying firm. There's only one party I can think of, that has actively excused this kind of behavior and that is the Democrats, in the cases of Barney Frank and Gerry Studds which come immediately to mind. Republicans seem to withdraw all support from their people who become involved in similar scandals -- see Mark Foley and Larry Craig.
3. The best comments are the many similar comments at the top of this thread, pointing out that only Orin Kerr's furtive imagination links the various scandals he wished to conjoin. It's the illegality, stupid. Not the sex. Clinton lied under oath. Hastert lied to the FBI.
As opposed to mere sexual indiscretions; Gingrich had zero criminal exposure, and so too did Bob Livingston (zero criminal exposure).
It really didn't take a law prof to figure that out.
So, Bill Clinton didn't perjure himself and have to surrender his law license or this means he should be forgiven?
Bill Clinton was a sexual predator. He still should not be allowed in decent society and have to stay 1000 ft away from schools.
Its true, we fall into sin very easily.
Its not easy to avoid sinning in thought, or through negligence, and not simply by avoiding sinful acts.
Simply claiming (or even thinking) one has achieved a more compassionate nature than someone else, is a sin, of pride.
This is not an avoidance of mind, to attempt a humble nature. It is rather mindfulness.
As for science and technology, and public policy for that matter, I can say for a fact tha these are helped greatly by a properly humble attitude. Murphy's law applies to idiot and genius alike. Test, test, test again, have someone else test, have it tested in large samples under extreme conditions, and then one can claim that your idea may, possibly, be better than the status quo, though you should have a backout plan.
Maybe we (i.e. the electorate, press, pundits, etc.) should just assume that the positions on issues taken by our elected officials are entirely independent of their private thoughts, feelings, experiences, and actions. That way, we can evaluate the elected official's positions on the issue and not worry about evaluating their private lives.
My understanding is that the charges against Dennis Hastert have nothing to do with his time in the government. He was a teacher when he was accused of being naughty and he is being somehow charged now for paying blackmail as a lobbyist. Strangely there are no charges against the blackmailer and the Hastert indictment initially covered making small withdrawals so as not to break the banking laws.
So next week we will see the formal papers covering the illegal charity run by the Clinton Crime Family, soon to be referred to as the Cosa Nostra. Expect Bill and Hill to beg for contributions to cover legal expenses. Could I possibly be wrong about this?
Maybe we (i.e. the electorate, press, pundits, etc.) should just assume that the positions on issues taken by our elected officials are entirely independent of their private thoughts, feelings, experiences, and actions. That way, we can evaluate the elected official's positions on the issue and not worry about evaluating their private lives.
That assumes that they are elected to represent the people rather than themselves. That train left the station. In reality, most Presidents de facto now represent no more than about half the voting populace. The reason for this is the creation of gerrymandered districts at the local level. So-called "safe-seats" encourage polarized representation,--even extremist representation depending on the district, especially at the congressional level. POTUS candidates who started in grassroots seed-beds emerge and flourish as polarized political species. This happens on both sides. At the national level, one emergent faction cleaves right, the other faction cleaves left. This didn't used to happen as blatantly, but it is probably the reason why we are doomed to 50/50 Presidential elections from here on out. There will be no more landslides.
Kerr should try reading some different history. Clinton had objectively lied under oath in court, something for which he was censured and led to him giving up his law license for 5 years. The question was always whether the perjury was something that should disqualify a President from office.
The answer from the left was a resounding NO, although they tried to avoid the issue by arguing it was all about sex. If people want to know why the current president feels like he can disregard laws he doesn't like, it may help to look at what happened in 1999. Obama knows Democrats will never vote to remove him from office or hold him accountable.
Nixon at least had enough integrity to resign when he was caught abusing his office. We might never have had a President Bush had Clinton done the same and brought in a President Gore in 1999.
"...a political party that purports to champion traditional values."
Its not easy to avoid sinning in thought, or through negligence, and not simply by avoiding sinful acts.
Yes it is. Just don't commit or nurse a wish to commit any harm upon others.
You find this to be difficult?
It is not a proud sin to hate stupidity. It is a proud sin to believe that your ignorance should be some guide for how to neglect the things that others rely on for their lives, happiness and livelihoods, and to advocate policies or behaviors based on that form of willful neglect.
It is a sin of proud ignorance to believe that not being perfect prevents us from having a stronger reaction to pedophiles who violate others than to adulterers who might or might not be hurting anyone or to gays who simply enjoy their sex lives and/or commitments with each other.
I think Kerr's point is that they are all sleazy, but I don't think he should have obscured the distinction between perjury and merely lying to do so.
Republican reject their politicians for misconduct while Democrats have deified Clinton, perjury, sexual misconduct, grifting and all.
A law professor doesn't know that lying under oath is different? I always assumed we had oaths for a reason other than to give the guy/gal in court with the Bible a job.
sinz52 said...
The Volokh Conspiracy is a conservative blog.
But like myself, he has enough of a sense of humor to be able to laugh at "his own side" when they make themselves look stupid.
Actually, the VC leans more libertarian than conservative. I've been following it since 2007.
Orin Kerr is the resident RINO. He is the only poster there that I've ever seen personally attack the intelligence of a commenter (a conservative who had a Doctorate in math, no less). The comment was perfectly reasonable, IMO, and Kerr responded to him with a nasty ad hominem.
He also comments on the posts of the more conservative bloggers, always to take issue with their posts, and/or defend the liberals under attack.
Sin is a funny thing. Most of it isn't about how you relate to other people but about your own nature. Your formula is necessary but insufficient.
One cannot hate "stupidity" as it does not exist independent of the stupid. And hating the stupid is about as sensible as hating the lame or the blind.
Pride is sneaky. Pride deceives. Pride leaves large blind sides vulnerable to our pal Murphy. Best not to be so sure, check your sums, and test, test, test.
As for pedophiles, Christ specified our attitude to them. I see no problem here. Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2, Matthew 18:6
As for adulterers and fornicators, Christ opened a way for them, so long as they sinned no more.
" I think he's being protected and I predict he'll be lionized by the usual suspects, especially if it turns out he's gay. "
He is already a hero at HuffPo. The second matter will be his age at the time of the alleged relationship. Most of the priest scandals were about teenaged boys and gay priests. There were a few true pedophilia cases but most were not. The seminaries were virtually taken over by gays and radical nuns in the 60s and the scandal came along ten years later. It was predictable.
Most gays are not pedophiles but they do like young boys in their teens.
Most gays are not pedophiles but they do like young boys in their teens.
Is this behind the hairless preference and aesthetic? That goes for mens' preference for women too.
Where the hell is Peter?
Perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice. Nothing about sex. So what's your point, Oren?
Hi rcocean - always enjoy your comments!
BAG: "Contrary to the Narrative, I have a theory that the Impeachment of Clinton actually did help the GOP."
rcocean: "I don't think it really helped or hurt. Usually the off-year 2nd term Presidential election is a big loser for the Presidential party. 2006, 1974, 1958, 1966, 1986 are examples. 1998 really wasn't that bad for the Dems primarily because the Republicans had controlled Congress since 1994 and had no positive platform. They weren't in favor of anything Clinton wasn't for, and the Country was at peace and prosperous.
But it was a razor thin election in 2000. Any mis-step by Gore or Bush could have changed the outcome. Remember the last minute drunk driving claim against Bush? That probably cost him 500K votes alone.
If there was no impeachment, then Gore certainly doesn't choose Lieberman and fully embraces Clinton, and, in my opinion, wins Clinton's "third term" just as Father Bush won Reagan's "third term" in 1988.
The impeachment was a big yawn, as you write, because the outcome in the Senate was known, once the Dems (except for Lieberman) decided to close ranks.
But it dominated the news cycle for months. Remember Lewinsky's irritating attorney William Ginsberg on all the talk shows and all that venom directed at Ken Starr? It was a circus. But, most importantly, in my view, the circus caused Gore to make that fateful tactical error of distancing his candidacy from Clinton. That's why it ended up being significant. It helped Bush win.
Imagine what they could have gotten Barney Frank for if they had had laws like this back in the day. Didn't he give some young homo a job in return for introducing him to other young homos? And it turned out said young homo was running a prostitution ring out of Barney's DC crib?
Poor Barney. Dumpy little middle aged guy thought the young men were into him.
Buwaya, if you were a woman, I'd marry you. Monty, you should talk less, listen more, and try to understand...well, almost anything. I'll throw you a bone and say that you're better than this.
By the way, what did Hastert do exactly, and when, and what is the point you're so keen to make?
Terry -- clean up your language. Are you ten?
One cannot hate "stupidity" as it does not exist independent of the stupid.
Yes it does. Stupidity is a choice. Unless one is retarded.
And hating the stupid is about as sensible as hating the lame or the blind.
Now wasn't that a perfectly stupid comment?
Most of the priest scandals were about teenaged boys and gay priests… The seminaries were virtually taken over by gays and radical nuns in the 60s and the scandal came along ten years later.
Really?
The poor, poor RCC. How hard it must be to find a good, asexual man these days. Actual leadership qualities optional.
I'm so glad to know that taking advantage of parishioners is okay as long as they're not too young.
There were a few true pedophilia cases but most were not.
Er, try again there, Old Faithful. The majority of abuses were committed against kids aged 11 to 14, with some as young as 3 years old.
Learn about what your beloved Church did, Mr. See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil. Denial pleaseth not thy Lord. Confess on their behalf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
After all, buwaya might be ok with you bearing false witness against all those little kids. But your Lord is not.
Steve Uhr-
Frank was given a high office in the government. He abused it. Frank is a disgrace. Describing a disgraced person sometimes requires disgraceful language.
There isn't a lot to admire about Barney Frank--least of all his bugnling of Fannie Mac and Freddie May that led to the subprime meltdown which I witnessed first hand but emerged from unscathed.
Ok so the difference here is that Clinton, Gingrich and Livingston got in trouble for having sex with other consenting adults while Dennis Hastert is an honest to goodness child molester. And is, apparently so good at covering up he got himself elected speaker of the House in the midst of the other guys getting caught.
Hiding a sexual affair is commonplace. Indeed it's downright Presidential, when it comes to politicians.
Hiding a illegal sexual affair with a minor is something different. Is that what Hastert did? We don't know the details yet. But a sexual affair with a minor does not mean that he was (or is) a pedophile.
Hiding a sexual affair with someone of the same sex is also commonplace, even though nearly everyone pretends to believe that homosexuality is just part of the range of normality. Fact is, a lot of people don't actually believe that. Or they forget the belief when someone they dislike is involved.
If the allegations are true, Dennis Hastert believed that his conduct was something either shameful or dangerous to him, or both. Yet it may well be that he would have served himself well to simply admit the conduct preemptively. Maybe his conduct was criminal. But accept that and fight it on that basis.
There's a lot we do not know, except that there has been an earthquake in Hastert's life.
It will be particularly interesting to find out who the "victim" is.
Literary question: was Lolita a victim?
As to the indictment, crimes lurk everywhere these days. It's part of the immense rise in the power of the state. The State is out to get Dennis Hastert now. It's not a fair fight.
Huh, are you sure? - I thought he was impeached for accepting bribes amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars for peddling influence including from foreign entities, and for laundering their money via a massive bogus charity. No? Well, let's impeach him for that, then.
It's probably easier to do when the New York Times is on your side.
It's hard find anyone in politics who can match the fantastic career of Teddy Kennedy.
Expelled from Harvard for cheating in 1951, joined the Army to piss off banker daddy, daddy pulls strings to cut his enlistment from 48 months to 24 months. In Paris! Teddy climbs Mount Blanc while American boys without connections are getting shot at and killed in Korea. Daddy pulls more strings to get Teddy back into Harvard to finish his undergrad degree, but even Harvard balks at letting dimwit Teddy into their law school, so Teddy goes to UVA law school instead.
Chappaquiddick was just the icing on the cake.
@Terry: Hey! The chicks and gays dug Teddy's 1950's abs!
Killer be damned, that body rocked!
Are we electing them to legislate or fornicate?
Did you know that when Clinton was at Oxford in 1969, Eileen Wellstone, 19, said Clinton raped her? And that this is supposedly why he never finished his studies there? Because he was forced to leave!
"A retired State Department employee later anonymously told Capitol Hill Blue in 1999 “There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma.…But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes scholar charged with rape. Bill left Oxford with no degree (96% of Rhodes Scholars get degrees)."
What would today's snowflakes have to say about that!
I would bet big money that Bill Clinton has raped little girls.
Very. Big. Money.
On private jets. Secluded compounds.
And that they were provided to him for political access.
If I understand this correctly, a man has been charged with the crime of withdrawing his own money out of his own bank account. Paying a blackmailer is not a crime so he's not being charged for what he was spending the money on. The guy on the other side of the transaction was the criminal in this situation, because blackmailing IS a criminal act.
If there was evidence of sexual abusive by Hassert, they would have charged him on that. But there isn't so they say he should have made larger and fewer withdrawals from his bank account while making his perfectly legal transactions.
Don't defend Hastert. Defending him is the tribal thing to do, but it is morally wrong.
The statute of limitations on Hastert's buggery long lapsed. I am of the generation of his victims and buggery was indeed not unknown. Several priests in my parish were pederasts. The FBI figured if they can't bust him for buggery then at least they can get him on something.
The sentiment on the Hastert case may be swinging against the government. Dershowitz has weighed in. Hastert is not a sympathetic victim but this is serious overreach when Bill Clinton is flying to gang bang islands with big and crooked donors.
Writes Alan Dershowitz:
"This case just smells," Dershowitz said. "I'm shocked that a prosecutor would allow this kind of case to be brought knowing that it will reveal the secrets, that it would open doors up to things that are alleged or have occurred almost half a century ago. … This is not a case that should've been brought in federal court"
"Paying hush money is not illegal," Dershowitz said. "He didn't want anybody to know about it, so he took money out in small amounts and the banks wouldn't report it. That is not within the heartland of what this statute was intended to cover – and then to have an indictment which essentially reveals that which Hastert was trying to conceal puts the government in the position of essentially being part of the blackmail – and it's just not right."
Hey, does this mean the Republicans get credit for electing the first gay Speaker of the House?
"Are we electing them to legislate or fornicate?"
Who's them? Hastert's purported sexual activity predated his political career, and the crime for which he is charged took place well after it.
Michael K said...
"... when Bill Clinton is flying to gang bang islands with big and crooked donors"
Am I the only one picturing Hervé Villechaize there to greet the plane?
I am Laslo.
Perjury. Not sex. How are you a professor?
I bet Bill Clinton would tag-team a young girl with Hervé Villechaize. I think he is That Kind of Guy.
I am Laslo.
"SMELLS LIKE POLITICS: Alan Dershowitz says Hastert indictment “smells.” The federal structuring statutes that Hastert is accused of violating are aimed at sniffing out drug money, tax evasion and other illegal activities. But paying “hush money,” as Hastert was allegedly doing, isn’t illegal." From Instapundit.
It reeks of politics, but of course this is the Obama "Justice" Department.
roundeye wrote -
"Don't defend Hastert. Defending him is the tribal thing to do, but it is morally wrong."
Do you think anyone here is defending him, specifically regarding his alleged sexual activity?
"Several priests in my parish were pederasts."
Several, as in three or more. Parish, not diocese, as in a single congregation. I don't know, but this is where I begin to doubt your story, or even that you are Catholic.
"The FBI figured if they can't bust him for buggery then at least they can get him on something."
I doubt very much that the FBI had the slightest interest in Hastert's "buggery," much less incidents over forty years old. But I agree with your conclusion, and that's the problem. To me it's wrong when agencies, and those who may influence them, should decide to "get" people on "something."
Bill Clinton actually was given a chance to come clean, and correct the record, and had he not lied to the grand jury also, he probably would not have been impeached. Denis Hastert never was alerted to the fact he faced prosecution if he lied.)
Now the underlying sexual conduct here might be worse. (although, let us not forget, Bill Clinton also probably raped a woman, Juanita Broderick, which is pretty serious.)
I think the FBI was indeed offended by the underlying acts. I mean, maybe Dennis Hastert made someone into a homosexual.
And we don't know it was pedophilia. It was probably illegal at the time, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 in Laerence vs Taylor it was unconstitutional to make it illegal. It was a student probably, but that at that time might not even have been a violation of school policy. The age of consent at that time (for females) was possibly 16, although it is 17 now, and we don't know what age this person was when it started.
By the way, Bernard Sanders could eb accused of tolerating it, because in the article quoted he did not spea disapprovingly of a person's "sex friend at 15" although the assumption is the other party is also about 15 or 16.
Laslo:
You're dating yourself. Hervé Villechaize has been dead for twenty years.
You should have used Verne Troyer or Peter Dinklage.
OK..read the comments backwords and missed the Fantasy Island reference......
The only winger to retain any integrity after this barrage of denial and obfuscation is sinz52, who acknowledged the key issue, when viewed from an objective point of view, Republican politicians look just as sleazy as Democrats. The public doesn't ignore Democrat failings because the MSM hides them, it ignores them because the other side is just as bad, if not worse. Same goes for money. Republicans have created a system awash with money from oligarchs, everyone knows this. Complaining about Democrats doing the same is pointless verbiage.
There has been a lot of moral preening about the Clintons on this blog in recent weeks. Predictably it has all come crashing down once again.
It might make sense to argue the issues that voters actually care about.
Arm, your usual blah blah but sinz52 is a rightist? Are you quite sure?
It might make sense to argue the issues that voters actually care about.
You mean lowering taxes, shrinking government, eliminating regulations, and reforming entitlements?
The Left and the MSM (I repeat myself) use Alinskyite tactics precisely so that they don't have to discuss the issues the voters care about.
AReasonableMan said...
The only winger to retain any integrity after this barrage of denial and obfuscation is sinz52, who acknowledged the key issue, when viewed from an objective point of view, Republican politicians look just as sleazy as Democrats. The public doesn't ignore Democrat failings because the MSM hides them, it ignores them because the other side is just as bad, if not worse. Same goes for money. Republicans have created a system awash with money from oligarchs, everyone knows this. Complaining about Democrats doing the same is pointless verbiage.
I don't know if you've ever seen the movie, "Red Dawn". It's not a particularly good movie. But there is a part of it that is illustrative. A group of Russian soldiers are posing for pictures in front of a historical marker at one of our national parks. The marker was a description of an indian battle that occurred at that site in the late 1800s. The soldiers asked their political commissar to read the marker to them. The commissar, well indoctrinated himself, could not just read it as it was written, but had to add a marxist dialectic interpretation.
You and Bob remind me of that when you post.
Rusty, other than confirming that you take your intellectual cues from right wing fantasies, your post lacks a coherent point.
Yes. 3 priests that served in my home parish were pederasts. The diocese moved them around. This is back in the 70s when there a lot more priests period.
Imagine if the fbi did not seek an indictment. Then six months later the accuser comes forward. They would be accused of covering up buggery by powerful people, like what is going on in the UK.
I'm with Dershowitz. Increasingly so.
roundeye,
OK, thanks for the confirmation that you meant what you wrote. BTW, were any if these three priests ever charged and prosecuted, or did everyone just "know" they enjoyed "buggery?" Awfully bad luck having three such priests assigned to your parish in a single decade.
As far as the FBI is concerned, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Did Hastert and the blackmailer cross state lines? We have a federal anti-buggery statute? We prosecute crimes unreported (not unsolved) for 40 years? Absent nonpayment, blackmailers voluntarily comes forward to make accusations? Who knew?
Lying to the FBI is a serious crime. Just ask Martha Steward. Lying under oath-perjury isn't a serious crime. Just ask Bill Clinton. There is something profoundly perverse when the presumed lying to cops is far worse an offense than when lying under oath in a judicial proceeding. Clinton skated without serious penalties for perjury predicated on a case of sexual harassment yet Stewart went to jail where there was no underlying crime on her part.
As for Hasterst, lets all of the facts come out but the only thing that can be said for sure is NEVER elect anyone from the Illinois political machines EVER to national office. If they haven't been convicted its because they haven't as yet been indicted.
ARM: "The public doesn't ignore Democrat failings because the MSM hides them, it ignores them because the other side is just as bad, if not worse. Same goes for money. Republicans have created a system awash with money from oligarchs, everyone knows this. Complaining about Democrats doing the same is pointless verbiage."
Didn't you just know that, ultimately, Democrat support for Democrat corruption and money-grubbing was the fault of Republicans.
The emergent prevailing moral law for Democrats is: "Two wrongs make a right provided one, and only one, was committed by a Republican (or a Republican can be accused of it).
It has been more succinctly stated by Democrat icon PeeWee Herman: "I know you are, but what am I?"
"Lying to the FBI is a serious crime."
Unless its about sex, because everyone lies about that.
So, Hasert is off the hook.
Just as the thread dies down we get "man" (in Spanish) to chastise Democrats for refusing unilateral political disarmament as some necessary price for preferring a less corrupt system.
Some people with horrible arguments aren't clear in whether they're just being dishonest, or actually stupid enough to believe what they preach.
With "man" (in Spanish) we can see that he's both stupid and immoral enough to have worked himself into a now predictable pattern of willfully deceiving even himself.
This is what happens when evil becomes senile.
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty, other than confirming that you take your intellectual cues from right wing fantasies, your post lacks a coherent point.
I'm not surprised you missed the refrence.Making my point every time you post.
"Maybe illicit sex at the highest levels of government is like making your bones in the mafia so they always have a way to put the screws to you."
Illicit sex is one of the perks of being in government, as it is for rock stars, celebrities, and all who have greater or lesser degrees of power or wealth.
The constant wife-cheating displayed by Gingrich, Livingstone and Hastert demonstrated that these men were in no position to lecture anyone on morality, but a few points seem to be missed by the Clinton defenders:
1) Just because your critics are hypocrites doesn't absolve you of what they're accusing you of. If David Duke calls Al Sharpton a racist idiot, does the fact that David Duke is also a racist idiot make Al Sharpton any less of a racist idiot?
2) Clinton was not impeached for "lying about sex" unless you want to simplify the Nuremburg trials to the Nazis being accused of "breaking international norms". Clinton was impeached for committing perjury while he was President, which showed his contempt for the law and only an idiot would say he didn't deserve some punishment for it. It's not as though he just lied to a reporter about it--he was under oath and if our laws mean anything our presidents of all people must be required to follow them.
3) None of this means impeachment was the right thing to do, though--while Clinton deserved punishment (perhaps whatever fine or penalty the judge deemed appropriate) an impeachment is a very big deal. Removal from office is an extreme sanction, and Congress should only use it when leaving the president in office is unacceptable. I don't think perjury in a trial (that didn't have anything to do with his presidency) reaches that level, and the GOP overplayed their hand by going forward with it.
Post a Comment