The Watergate scandal which brought down Richard Nixon originated in a “third rate burglary”. The burglary itself was of no consequence to Nixon. It was the steps he took to protect the burglars that ultimately proved his undoing. Similarly, the recent news stories about Andrew Sullivan’s citation for pot possession on Cape Cod revolve less around the possession of a small amount of marijuana in a national park then what happened afterward. Jacob Sullum at Reason describes the incident in a matter-of-fact way.
Gawker, citing a report on the blog of Massachusetts Lawyer’s Weekly, notes that blogger/journalist Andrew Sullivan was cited for pot possession in July at the the Cape Cod National Seashore. The U.S. Attorney’s Office later sought to drop the charge, arousing objections from a judge who suspected Sullivan was receiving special treatment. At a hearing last week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings noted that people caught with pot at the Cape Cod National Seashore are “routinely” prosecuted. When he asked why an exception was being made in this case, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Lang said his office did not want to adversely affect Sullivan’s application for “a certain immigration status” (possibly a visa renewal; Sullivan is a British citizen). Dissastisfied by this explanation, Collings worried in a memorandum (PDF) issued yesterday that “the United States Attorney is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked.” He said “it is quite clear that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances.” Collings nevertheless granted the prosecution’s request to dismiss the charge against Sullivan, saying he felt constrained to do so by his limited discretion in such decisions.
As Judge Collings noted, the cited offense was pretty trivial in itself. It was the actions of the United States Attorney that entailed a major issue: that of “not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked.”
It is entirely possible, though a little hard to believe, that the US Attorney’s intervention on Andrew Sullivan’s behalf was unsolicited; that the attorney simply took it upon himself to help Sullivan because the British writer’s great fame and star power aroused his indignation at the citation and compelled him to act. However that may be, it would be natural for some people to think that Mr. Sullivan’s lawyers may have used the telephone and the conversations resulted in the “special treatment” whose purpose ironically would be to help Sullivan qualify for an unspecified US visa. One would think that the efforts of a foreign citizen to bend the local judicial process for his benefit would argue against his willingness to play by the rules of the country he wishes to live in; but in this case it is supposed to have the contrary effect. It smooths the way for Sullivan’s claim to be able to use the term “we” in his writing and conversations about America.
But which America? Who is the “we”, kemo sabe in this instance? If “we” in this context are those “well-connected people who can afford good lawyers (such as politicians’ children) [who] will have more success at avoiding charges, or minimizing penalties, than the average Joe Pothead” then the Sullivan incident highlights two problems. One is what Sullum calls the “collateral penalties associated with pot busts—which can include suspension of driver’s licenses, loss of student aid, disqualification from various professions, and bars on adoption, voting, and jury service” — all to the good – but the other is what I will call the phenomenon of elite exemption — that presumption that some are more equal than others, which once accepted in culture leads slowly but surely to corruption.
Unchecked, the “do you know who I am phenomenon” leads to a permanent double standard; the emergence of a group of people who we dare not, indeed are not qualified to question. The process begins slowly and ends in debasement so thorough that it becomes the new normal. The corruption of the press in a Third World country is an interesting phenomenon to watch. It begins with the acceptance of small favors — transportation, discount accomodation, small courtesies and preferred access — by the press, which politicians and those in power are always so eager to proffer in order to corrupt. Eventually it succeeds. In small doses it is not especially harmful, but soon it becomes a way of life. Things reach the point — and this is done quite openly in places like the Philippines — where newsmen are seated at press conferences with a little envelope placed at their designated places. Each envelope is supposed to contain a sum of money, which presumably varies according to the “newsman’s” worth and it is pocketed without any further comment or public notice, just as if it were a dessert mint or a press handout. You know press corruption has become serious when it stops being noticed; when it becomes like the air that is breathed or the water that is imbibed; transparent, limpid, just part of the scenery.
One of the great glories of the Western press used to be that they actually paid for their transportation. You can’t imagine how surprised some Third World officials are at the the fact that some journalists don’t expect to be given “envelopes” or have their every expense paid for. When you send a donation to Bill Roggio, Michael Yon or to Michael Totten, they need it to pay for their fares, buy their body armor and buy the odd kebab in some stall. They need the readers to keep them independent. There is of course the problem of accepting hospitality, especially in foreign countries. My own personal rule is that it should always be declared, never give rise to a sudden change in your pre-existing positions and never amount to material income. Despite that qualification, even the acceptance of normal hospitality brings in train a kind of personal debt; bearable to some extent, for so long as it doesn’t go too far. And it’s easy to cross the line.
One of former attractions of journalism was to be intimate with the brick thrown into your window, the gun shoved into your face, the sap applied to the back of your head; to know the smell of sawdust on a gym floor, to be familiar with groping for a dime amid the lint in your pocket for that phone call to the city desk; and to know the sour taste of bad coffee served at the cut-rate greasepit. This was the price of admission into a brotherhood, or so we were told. If today that’s changed to the point where a US Attorney will act to keep you from getting busted, then life has gotten easier for journalists, the question is, has it gotten better? In the Andrew Sullivan incident, the citation for pot possession is in itself trivial; it’s a third-rate bust. What is potentially serious is the burden that it places on Sullivan himself. Who can blame others if they believe he now acquired a debt of gratitude towards the US Attorney and his bosses? Who can blame the bosses of the US Attorney for thinking they now have a marker on Sullivan they can call in some day? And worst of all, who can blame those who think that justice is after all, not blind: that some are more equal than others? None of these forebodings are necessarily valid. I don’t know if calls were made or favors were asked. Come to that, I never actually saw what was inside the envelopes I watched handed out at press conference. For all I really know all they contain is empty air. But it’s the doubt that corrodes.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
I still remember reading Animal Farm, more than 30 years ago …
The 7th comandment states: ‘All animals are equal’.
Or in the amended form: ‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others‘
It would be an interesting poll to ask of Americans, are all men created equal, or are some more equal than others?
It would be natural for some people to think that Mr. Sullivan’s lawyers may have used the telephone and the conversations resulted in the “special treatment” whose purpose ironically would be to help Sullivan qualify for an unspecified US visa.
Given that the current occupant of the WH has acknowledged using pot and cocaine, is anyone surprised that Sully got off?
Ah yes, in the US nothing so gauche as money in an envelope….Just government jobs, social connections, admittance to universities for the kids, good tables at name restaurants, and the good old boy court rulings.
I remember a story about after the head of company purchasing depart was fired for kick backs, the new guy hired to be in charge called everyone together and said, “If someone offers you something don’t accept it if you can’t drink it, eat it, or have sex with it in one day.”
I think it was Jesse Unruh who said, “If you can’t take a man’s money, drink his liquor, sleep with his women, and then vote against him the next day, you have no business in Washington.”
Three things:
1) If we had had an internet back then, one has to wonder if Nixon would have been forced out of office.
2) After Clinton’s response to is impeachment proceeding, and the results there of, one has to wonder how meaningful this process is. Clinton’s acts were much worse than Nixon’s ever where, and yet he could remain in office. Had Nixon fought it, would it have worked out differently? Nixon did what he deemed the honorable thing: he did not involve the nation in a divisive and drawn out crisis at a time of great peril in the Cold War. Unlike Clinton, he has respect for the nation. He need not have done this, and it may have actually been the wrong moral decision in light of subsequent events.
3) We must remember that Nixon was really targeted not because of the break in, but because he was an ardent Cold Warrior and stalwart anti-communist. This issue was only opportunistically seized upon by our internal and external enemies. It did not help Nixon either that he was also detested by the good old but, “gentlemen” network of the Country Club wing of the GOP.
Nixon was ill-served by the American people, and if we throw off this communist assault on our nation, I imagine that history will treat him rather better than the NYT ever did.
On the other hand,Let’s get the real criminals
What will be interesting is where the trail leads. Unless there was a bribe it’s likely it was approved higher than a front line level.
Sully’s case is no laughing manner. Open corruption and the failure to deal with it is one of the the hallmarks of a decadent and dying culture. One hopes that the courts change their minds on the matter.
maybe they don’t have a marker on Sullivan, maybe he’s called in his marker.the former attractions of journalism date from a time when journalism was a trade,today’s attractions are the perqs of being a member of the political class.envelopes and cash are for cavemen,you really don’t expect Lords and Knights to expose Dukes and Earls? Mind you that’s why the MSM is circling the drain.
How ironic that Sullivan with his great love of conspiracy theories placed himself square in the middle of a conspiracy. An Assistant DA has a schedule full of serious cases and probably wouldn’t be handling this unless his boss order him to do so. Minor crimes on US property are routinely handled by the very lowest rung of the US Attorney’s office, not the full time professional staff. Who made the phone calls up and down the ladder at Justice to put the fix in? And, of course, what is the pro quo?
Feel free to use your fervid imagination. Andrew always does of late.
Feel free to use your fervid imagination. Andrew always does of late.
Bahney Fwank, perhaps?
Having many relatives on the wife’s side living in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts I can atest to the fact that the fixing of tickets is common practice at all levels, even with my one-step-above-the-farm relatives. It’s just a phone call to the right person that takes care of the problem.
Mr. Sullivan has HIV…
I doubt any jury would convict anyone with HIV or cancer who said he was taking marijuana for “medicinal purposes” and who was not a pusheer.
The theoretical motivation for this favor was that it avoided triggering a bar on visa renewal or reentry into the country that accompany a criminal conviction. Most people are unaware of these restrictions. The problem is that they were not created by a cabal of reactionary Customs and Border Protection officers nor by some hick local prosecutors who lack the gift for nuance present in the US Attorney’s office in Massachusetts. These rules are found in laws written by the Congress.
On a host of issues but especially on that of immigration Congress suffers from massive hypocrisy. They write laws and then write conflicting laws or otherwise encourage the persons charged with executing the laws, that being what the Executive branch does, to not enforce the law. This is not a matter of discretion or rather the law will state where discretion may be exercised and by who.
If Mr Sullivan wanted special relief he could have applied to a friendly Bay State Congressman or he could have openly appealed for mercy in his case to the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security. The one thing he should not have done is sanction any deed that implies the corruption of a prosecutor’s office. That really does raise the question of his fitness for admission.
BTW to illustrate the power of privileged groups to get special exemptions from the laws written by Congress, if you have tuberculosis then you are barred from entry into the Untied States, but if you have an HIV infection, which is more communicable but is also more aligned with politically favored groups, then the ban on entry due to a Public Health condition does not apply.
How ironic. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I have heard that Mr. Sullivan has AIDS. And what would happen to him if he could no longer reside in the US? He would have to depend upon treatment on a system he shills for here, the socialized medical care of the UK. One that would doom him pretty damn quick.
Once again, how ironic. And how hypocritical. Deport the bastard at once.
“What is potentially serious is the burden that it places on Sullivan himself. Who can blame others if they believe he now acquired a debt of gratitude towards the US Attorney and his bosses? Who can blame the bosses of the US Attorney for thinking they now have a marker on Sullivan they can call in some day? And worst of all, who can blame those who think that justice is after all, not blind: that some are more equal than others?”
After reading the above, I kept thinking of that famous scene in “The Godfather” (1972) between Don Corleone and Bonasera the Undertaker:
Don Corleone: We have known each other many years, but this is the first time you’ve come to me for counsel or for help. I can’t remember the last time you invited me to your house for a cup of coffee, even though my wife is godmother to your only child. But let’s be frank here. You never wanted my friendship. And you feared to be in my debt.
Bonasera: I didn’t want to get into trouble.
Don Corleone: I understand. You found paradise in America. You had a good trade, you made a good living. The police protected you and there were courts of law. So you didn’t need a friend like me. Now you come and say “Don Corleone, give me justice.” But you don’t ask with respect. You don’t offer friendship. You don’t even think to call me “Godfather.” You come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married and you ask me to do murder – for money.
Bonasera: I ask you for justice.
Don Corleone: That is not justice. Your daughter is alive.
Bonasera: Let them suffer then as she suffers.
[the Don is silent]
Bonasera: How much shall I pay you?
[the Don turns away dismissively, but Bonasera stays on]
Don Corleone: Bonasera, Bonasera, what have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? If you’d come to me in friendship, this scum who ruined your daughter would be suffering this very day. And if by some chance an honest man like yourself made enemies they would become my enemies. And then, they would fear you.
Bonasera: Be my friend… Godfather.
[the Don at first shrugs, but upon hearing the title he lifts his hand, and a humbled Bonasera kisses the ring on it]
Don Corleone: Good.
[He places his hand around Bonasera in a paternal gesture]
Don Corleone: Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, consider this justice a gift on my daughter’s wedding day.
[a gratified Bonasera offers his thanks and leaves]
Don Corleone: [to Hagen] Give this job to Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren’t going to be carried away. I mean, we’re not murderers, in spite of what this undertaker thinks…
Mr Sullivan is another case similar to Ms Paglia, who we recently discussed. He is of the Left on a whole range of issues but he is not a loyal apparatchik. The hard Left will never forgive him for his apostasy on the War on Terror (as it was) and the Iranian regime (as it is) but his economic libertarianism poses no threat to them. While he can count on some support from the Left they probably view him as a useful provocateur, as many on the right view Ms Paglia, and others will view his discomfit with equanimity.
MarkJ,
Nice catch, video worthy.
Another example of “what goes around comes around.” This administration and its supporters believe they can get away with their “do you know who I am?” approach to life and society, but one by one they will come a cropper — just as Sullivan has. It really doesn’t matter who intervened on his behalf. Someone did and the moral high ground is no longer his. We can only hope the same happens soon to so many in high office today: Geithner, Frank, Dodd, Emanuel, Pelosi, Reid — the list goes on and on. F
What did Obama know and when did he know it?!?!??
(sorry – I wanted to be the first to ask it)
The “financier behind the thrown” [sic] is laughing while he rakes in the loot.
Our confidence and trust in the institutions and elected and appointed leadership of this country are devalued to a level below that of human waste.
Try making a list of the officials and organizations you still trust.
How many are there that you still expect to behave as advertised, whose every utterance you do n’t feel you have to scrupulously inspect and track to be sure they actually do what they said they would instead of the exact opposite?
How many people do you know that you trust with your actual opinions on 2nd amendment and whether your own list of possessions includes any item of significance WRT that clause?
How many folks do you know that have told you they will NOT let anyone inject them with the flu vaccine concocted and flogged by this administration?
Sore Ose and o and the rest of the cockroaches are debasing more than just the currency. They’re obliterating the institutions that define the United States government, by making it impossible for citizens to be able to tell lies from facts when coming from the mouths of their own government.
We are past the point at which a majority of the nation takes it for granted that if the president’s lips are moving, he’s lying.
Ditto for every one of his dipped-in-excrement Czars.
Be prepared.
19. F: “Another example of “what goes around comes around.” This administration and its supporters believe they can get away with their “do you know who I am?” approach to life and society, but one by one they will come a cropper — just as Sullivan has.”
Nah, most of them will be just fine. There’s always been a “do you know who I am?” double standard, but in the past they tried not to be so blatant about it.
As far as Sullivan, his offense was trivial. I think it’s much more likely that a good word was put in from one lawyer friend to another, than that anyone was bribed, or required some future quid pro quo, like in the Godfather. Happens every day – the Judicial System, like any other, runs on personal interaction to a large degree.
In an era when powerful committee chairmen can mysteriously discover that their net worth is twice what they thought it was, and “Friends of Angelo” permeate our Congress, I don’t see a whole lot of evidence that “they” will eventually “come a cropper”. Maybe some will lose their seats, but they’ll be fine, I’m sure. That’s the way the rules of the game are written. Take care of your own.
Only the most blatant or politically inconvenient are at risk – occasionally they have to find someone who took things too far, or ripped off the wrong people (like Bernie M), to demonstrate to the rest of us that the law still has meaning. The Bernies of the world have their uses, as well.
In former times the rule was to try to keep corruption and favoritism out of the public eye. If you were blatant, stupid, or made the wrong enemies, and were caught, then you paid the price, to cover for your brothers in arms who were more subtle.
That’s a rational reaction from defenders of the double standard. But now it’s so in-your-face that there’s a possibility that their apple cart may be partially upset. Maybe some will get their justice, as you say, but I’m not holding my breath. I hope you’re right.
Perhaps I’m chanelling my inner Mulder, but I wonder if this isn’t a convenient “small potatoes” ginned up to distract people from other shenanigans.
This time without respect to LOTM’s cititzenship status -
Since the democratic leadership would have had to know that certifying Obama’s eligibility to be president in writing–which they had to do –would have put them in legal jeopardy–how did they actually certify Obama’s eligibility to be president?
Interestingly they did it by a way that’s similar to the slight of hand of the COLB biz. But there are interesting differences.
All of the DNC certification documents that were submitted to 50 states lacked a line — standard to all boilerplate presidential certifications. All the documents submitted…and remember that word “submitted”… lacked — this line…
“- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
For more on this story go here.
The courts mock justice everyday. Ask any father who has been through family courts.
Perjury is admissable. Evidence is not. Recourse to the Law is no defense. Rights are optional.
In my custody/visitation disputes (14 years worth) I’ve been told by both police AND judges that they will not enforce their own court orders, nor the laws of this state. (my ex-wife is a state senators daughter – go figure)
There is no justice. There is no law. (and my attorney, ironically, is the highest ranked legislator in the state)
Fortunately, I’m a christian and am not expecting any justice here on earth.(sure would be nice though)
I have a strange problem with the comments interface here. My typing only produces a character 80% of the time. This makes my spelling atrocious and unreadable, unless I backspace and correct constantly. I thought it was keyboard failure at first, but if I type really slow it works, or if I type elsewhere it works fine. (I made 13 corrections to finish this post)
Is there a prblem with the interface or do I have a kestrke logger virus?
aaron, no problem here with the interface. do you have anything else running on your workstation at the same time? what browser are you using? on some other sites, with some browsers the ajax or jquery code can cause the symptoms you’re seeing, but I haven’t seen it here.
Readers seem to not be aware of a pertinent statute of the Federal and State legal code: The area from Provincetown to Chappaquidick is a Democrat no-fault zone. The arresting officer in the Sullivan incident may have been initially confused by Sullivan’s accent or documentation. (Mistaken identity of Democrats as Republicans sometimes occurs, and this misidentification can cause mental pain and suffering for the falsely identified person.) Fortunately, proper authorities were informed about Sullivan’s real identification and his protection under the relevant statute and have now set things right.
Geez, I can understand BC readers not being entirely familiar with the relevant statute, but ignorance of the law is no excuse for reckless comments.
OT, but here goes. The first steps of the trope against our society is to falsely premise it on the economic notion [marxism] that there are “the haves”, and the “have nots”
The citation of the written text of that godfather scene is great because of the opportunity to scan the selected use of language in the screen play (presumably, on how the principals would use the language).
The godfather mentions, that Bonasera could have better prepared himself for his need of service (justice) if he had so much as invited godfather to share a cup of coffee.
Implied is the fact that a real invitation for godfather to deign to sit at ones humble table for dinner would presumably amount to a supreme form of ritual in that offering the meal would be far more than merely to nourish the nutritional needs of the body, and certainly not to buy favor but to demonstrate that the godfather was the only source of help that one should trust in matters of “justice”.
godfather disabuses Bonasera of not trusting him (by demonstrations of “respect”) by reminding him that the raper of his daughter would be suffering now had he trusted, respected godfather all this time.
All this gets to what differs in this code from the obama/chicago hybrid. On a national scale, only the criteria of what it takes to go from “have not” to [a] “have” changes: and that is where obama makes its modus the compromise and the complicity of those it chooses to bring into the fold, or the family, or the whatever one calls it.
One could argue that that same modus is present in the modus of the cosa nostro, but I would counter that there is a subtle (or not-so-subtle) fine-line-between-them difference: the cosa nostro tends to leave those who don’t participate in their “behaviors forbidden by the church” rackets alone (gambling, alchohol, later drugs, prostitution, “protection”, etc)
S0Bhamas national socialism wants everybody but the most privileged elite to be paying for their crime syndicate.
And be obliged to be complicit whether they choose to be or not.
Bonasera fared far better with godfather despite his indiscretion(s) where “respect” was concerned.
FYI the “haves”, “not haves” theory (above) is based on the equally false premise that [a] government should be in the business of “social justice”. thank you.
Charles,
If your article is true, a whole bunch of people are in deep doo doo.
Like the Watergate break in, it no longer matters whether Buraq has an appropriate birth certificate or not; those in power at the DNC conspired to defraud the various State Secretary of States, and the Federal Election Commission. Then of course, those Secretary of States and those at the FEC chose not to do their job. All are in on the game, and should be prosecuted.
If this is true the Republicans should ride this thing for all it’s worth.
Hey guys, it could be a lot simpler than you think.
Maybe it was Quid Pro Queer…..
I have read that USAtty’s have almost total discretion in what they investigate and prosecute. No better friend….
Wretchard,
In the past, at different times I have heard you being accused of being either too optimistic or too pessimistic about our political situation. I think that you are being far too optimistic in this case.
What citizen of the United States can really depend on the law or the Constitution if he comes before the government, without some special relationship or leverage? Others have discussed the innate corruption that exists. I submit that the process that has been moving for decades has reached the turning point where the normal political/legal processes described by the civics books are moot.
The corruption of the press in a Third World country is an interesting phenomenon to watch. It begins with the acceptance of small favors — transportation, discount accomodation, small courtesies and preferred access — by the press, which politicians and those in power are always so eager to proffer in order to corrupt. Eventually it succeeds.
Some time ago, we became a Third World Country in all but our economy and in the hearts of about half of our people. The Press and government already are hopelessly corrupt. We decry example after example here. Where was the DemStream Media in the run up to Van Jones’ resignation? Deliberately absent, and now we have the absurd explanation from the New York Times that they did not have the resources to cover the story because of summer vacations by their reporters. In the repeated cases of ACORN, which is functionally a government funded, government controlled organization now [at least as long as the Democrats are in power]; being caught attempting to simultaneously commit child prostitution, tax fraud, campaign finance fraud, bribery of public officials, violate immigration laws, and extortion …. where are the page one headlines, the news specials, the “investigative reporters”? If there are any real reporters, instead of government functionaries with journalism degrees; they know that speaking out would cost them their careers and risk the possibility of government payback. The rest are committed to competing for the chance to be fed a question to ask to “The Lightbringer” at one of his scripted press conferences.
The local press is silent, because their staff either fear missing a chance to make a career move to the big city, or because given the economic collapse in the newspaper business their only hope is to get on the government teat. The staff of our local paper admits that the chain out of Texas that owns them has given orders that there will be no coverage of Tea Parties or of Congressional Town Halls where a Congress-critter gets hammered by his constituents for supporting Obama [our own Congressman is a staunch opponent of ObamaMengeleCare, got cheered by hundreds when he came to town, and got mininal coverage from the paper].
We are in fact two very different countries inside one set of borders. The rule of law is void, except in minor day to day transactions where politics are not involved. And corruption is spreading. And it is bipartisan, with the Republicans being more ham-handed and less competent at the process than Democrats.
Mad Fiddler said:
Our confidence and trust in the institutions and elected and appointed leadership of this country are devalued to a level below that of human waste.
Try making a list of the officials and organizations you still trust.
I am a retired Peace Officer. Over my career I have seen innumerable cases where position protected individuals from the law, and where erstwhile political opponents rallied together to preserve a member of their own class from the legal and political consequences of his actions; while the hammer is dropped on those who do not have such connections. If I have to deal with the government at any level for anything outside of the routine [and the problem can be seen as growing when routine matters start joining this class of interactions]I know that I will have to have some sort of special angle [acquaintance with the appropriate official or his staff, etc.] to get treated as the rules say or in a timely manner.
We cannot depend on the laws. Look once again at the ACORN sting. While I have not had time to confirm this, late last night just before I shut down I read that those who caught them may be prosecuted in Maryland [Democrat at all levels of government] while ACORN gets a pass. As I said, unconfirmed yet; but would that surprise anybody here if and when it is confirmed?
Andrew Sullivan, based on experience, can be assumed to have been protected from the secondary legal consequences of his actions by direct order of the Administration. When the (acting) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Prosecutions Division personally appears in court to argue on his behalf, and directly cites the adverse affect on his visa as a reason to drop the charges; the fix was in from DC. Andrew Sullivan is a relatively high value asset of the Democrat’s propaganda machine. As such, they are protecting their investment. The mutual relationship can, most benignly, be considered as akin to the permanently employed “salaryman” of Japanese corporations in the 1960′s. Less benignly, the “Godfather” has been mentioned above, or perhaps more accurately it could be compared to that of a medium level apparatchik in any totalitarian regime of your choice. Because, just as they could and would be discarded by the regime if they became inconvenient with no regard for personal loyalty; Sullivan could become a non-person instantly if the regime turns on him. And he knows it. And will now take any step to avoid it.
It is said, with more than a little truth, that Americans involved in law enforcement, life safety, and the military are simultaneously the most absolutely cynical people in the world, and the most idealistic. Cynical; because we see the reality of what human beings [average Joes and especially those who hold themselves above the rest of us] are really like in all of their stupid, immoral, and corrupt “glory”. And idealistic, because we do the job that we do for whatever higher purpose drives us on, anyway. Maybe that is why most in those professions are not in love with the way the country is going, and why we are looked on with fear and disgust by those who are in charge.
Subotai Bahadur
UPDATE and confirmation for #34 above:
While I have not had time to confirm this, late last night just before I shut down I read that those who caught them may be prosecuted in Maryland [Democrat at all levels of government] while ACORN gets a pass. As I said, unconfirmed yet; but would that surprise anybody here if and when it is confirmed?
The Maryland State’s Attorney’s Office is looking into prosecuting the reporters.
http://wbal.com/apps/news/templates/story.aspx?articleid=35357&zoneid=2
I will leave it to everyone else to comment. My personal reaction is not printable in Wretchard’s House.
Subotai Bahadur
Corruption in our governments has existed before and has been expunged by concerned citizens acting together.
Case in point: California around 1900. The state political machinery was controlled by the Southern Pacific Railroad. Some Republicans got together and busted their hold by using the initiative, the referendum, and the recall.
Another twist was a law that made it a felony with 5 years in prison for ANY elected official in the state to accept free transportation on a railroad. that law is still in force today.
We CAN make our government clean again.
From today’s assemblies:
“The more corrupt the state,
the more it legislates”
-Tacitus
0bamacare: It’s to die for
-Anonymous
Funny, ACORN members, caught on tape, have been fired yesterday for actually doing their job(s)
OK, I forgot to get to the OT part.
What is the objective of these totalitarians, their perverted fuedal system, and their byzantine unwritten forms of fealty?
(And this is where they have miscalculated, yet again)
I think that these ward heelers obsessed with control think that they can turn on, and mostly off, the fountain of happiness, primarily because they simply don’t understand it (to begin with): and because as with every last material thing, it, happiness, is to them just one more commodity to be coveted. “Controlled”
How else to explain why, in a panoply of Thou Shall Nots… coming from the government, they are now linking obesity to “Health Care Costs, and therefore, food (or “nutrition” must be “controlled” as well, or why they mention that more people will lose their health care coverage, and that’s why we will need to do something now, or at least, before its too late? And so on.
That’s the talking points 0bama is using in his counter-rally for today.
Maybe people might lose their “health” care because unemployment has doubled from 4.7 to 9.7 per cent? And that therefore 0bama benefits politically from a worsening economic “climate” in this “jobless” recovery, or that a worsening economy is by design, for that reason?
They want the flesh on our bones, and they are willing to pick at the bones if that’s all that remains, but like @36, I am optimistic too.
I believe that we are ready to forego our happiness in pursuit of our principle’s, especially when one of those principle’s is that the pursuit of happiness, not “happiness” is but one of the principle’s on the line, and at stake here, for the reason’s cited above. That’s where they have miscalculated.
We seriously need to pose this question to someone of the stature of Judge Andrew Napolitano or Solicitor General Ted Olson: We need information about initiating a recall or class action suit against any Maryland State official who attempts to pursue civil or criminal prosecution against the two people who have documented ACORN’s pervasive criminality.
It is encouraging to see that someone in the U.S. Department of Justice is continuing to pursue an inquiry of some sort into the decision to drop prosecution of the blatant New Black Panthers voter intimidation at a Philadelphia polling place during the last presidential election. But there is much work to be done.
Even the anonymous bureaucrats of the European Union will be alarmed to think that ACORN co-founder Wade Rathke’s swarm of “community organizations” will be using funds looted, stolen, extorted, and embezzled from U.S. taxpayers, then secretly siphoned from their U.S. sister organizations to subvert governments in completely other countries.
I’m just becoming acquainted with Mr. Wade Rathke, who is evidently an old buddy of Bill Ayers the un-prosecuted terrorist pal of our own wonderful prezzie Sad dam Hussei… I mean, Burlap … I mean… oh, ferget it.
This is a vision of hell – worse than any description of the Tower of Babel I ever heard as a kid:
A fraction of our country’s folk are trying to grow food, build houses, sew clothes, minister to the sick, teach, hew, and defend.
Another fraction sit around in fine health, waiting for the food and goodies to be brought to them.
A third fraction gather at the fringes shouting that the people doing the work are selfish bastards, and the housing and food and furniture and everything that’s given to the ones who don’t work is crappy.
Finally, there’ the thug fraction, who are determined to incite the non-workers and do-gooders to make war on the ones who produce, so the thugs can rule the survivors of the conflict.
We are living in a cesspool.
And it seems like there is only a tiny fraction of the people who have any desire to clean it up.
So what. I think his opinions and writings are crapola but is that the issue?
How many folks here think that marijuana use still needs to be criminal? Even if more than half that is still not enough for my inner libertarian.
We can do lots of unhealthy stuff, booze, trans-fats, skydiving… Just dont take away my bi-weekly Big Mac and those hot salty fries. I also like a good martini.
Pot smoking is bad for your health. That is no reason to lock people up. Gimme one good reason – please. OK so the lawyers can argue but c’mon.
So one guy got away with it because of connections and he is a ‘useful and productive peaceful resident here’. Does anyone here think that our legal system works otherwise?
Guess what, pot users and producers… You are outside the entire system. Enjoy that. You have no taxes or regulation. You are a libertarian dream. Legalize and you will be hit much harder than ordinary evils such as tobacco or gasoline.
I do not believe that conservatives and liberals are truly divided on this issue. We missed another chance to talk about something important.
Spindok
Spindok: I think most of us could care less what he smokes, consumes, or inserts in his rectum.
The issue is why he is “more equal” than the rest of us. Laws for me, but not for thee tend to really piss folks off.
“Do you know who I am?”
“That sir is the wrong question”
Well what is the right question?”
“Do I care who you are?”
Sir Henry:
In another version:
“Do you know who I am?”
“You mean you don’t?”
F
Did Joe Wilson owe an apology or was he owed one? The rules of hospitality are important to me. They are reciprocal between a guest and a host. Barack Obama was present in the House of Representatives last Wednesday as an invited guest. The presiding officer of the House, who may be loyal only to the Constitution and to the House, admitted him and vouched to her members for his good conduct. While present as her guest and the guest of the House as a whole Obama violated the rules of courtesy by engaging in personal attacks on Mrs. Palin and on some members of Congress. To be clear about it he fairly unambiguously called them liars for saying things about his favored plan, which he had deceitfully failed to acknowledge as his own until that moment, and which have proved to be correct. He then proceeded to tell a series of falsehoods so outrageous that even the AP ran an article pointing that out. What Mr Wilson should have done, according to Rpbert’s Rules of Order is raise a Point of Personal Privilege as any member may rise to defend the decorum of the House.
Mrs Pelosi owes Mr Wilson an apology for bringing a person of such low character into the House.
Sir Henry Morgan,
From the things to say on your last day at work for TSA file.
“Do you know who I am?”
“Can somebody help this poor man? He doesn’t know who he is.” … or …
“Let’s check the lining of your jacket” yank “Look, it says your name must be Robert Hall” (or Calvin Klein etc.)
Ideally that skit plays out until two Supervisors debate whether his name is really Fruit of the Loom.
Unsk, Mad and Aaron,
The topic of the Democrats’ abstract “social justice” has been on the top of my mind lately, and Sullivan’s special treatment under the law makes me write.
I rub elbows with local leftist academics often and their tendency to champion alternatives to America’s established jury-trial system strikes me as a self-serving attempt to get around their citizen-peers’ adverse judgements.
Whether they are cast as “environmental justice,” “social justice,” or “economic justice,” all these work-arounds pretend to supplant our legislated, court-mediated judicial system with one that is mediated by unaccountable media, foreign courts, or other unanswerable ad hoc “judiciaries.”
Which should raise eye-brows in states’ AG offices all over our nation. Recall the case of cop-killer Mumia? Basically, if a plaintiff in California or New Jersey or Philadelphia cannot win a favorable settlement from a jury of his peers, and, if he exhausts all his options to appeal to higher courts, then he’s likely to appeal to whichever ex parte justice system will rule in his favor.
Convenient, huh?
Let’s take all the Left’s “Justices” one at a time. First, “Economic Justice” is the ad hoc “court” of preference for individuals who, for whatever reasons, cannot generate the income they need to live their preferred lifestyle. It is used to justify everything from “slavery reparations” to “living wages.” Fuzzy justice: Of course one’s subjective notions of what constitutes wealth or comfort or health or “economic respect” are relative to local economies of scale and the individual’s notable achievements. And no established jury of our peers could rationally rule that criminal sanctions should attach to a situation where no criminal is charged, and where the victim’s claimed “harm” cannot be objectively measured.
Same goes with the second one, “Environmental Justice.” Except that here, the plaintiffs are usually environmentalist rent-seekers attempting to engineer tax-payer subsidies (ex. Green Credits), property seizures or a politician’s election without having to indict or convict any criminal.
Last, “Social Justice,” global progressives’ third rallying cry, treads the same murky waters. This “justice” is the catch-all one, used or not depending on the audience, to furnish the same ex parte “reliefs” that the first two “justices”provide, but when the first two won’t “resonate” sufficiently.
I write this because, seeing the Democrat’s various “Justices” described as the ad hoc, extra-parliamentary actions that they are should give America’s real Democrats pause. It doesn’t matter whether it is a social, economic or environmental “justice” they are championing at any given moment, none of these abstracts have received the American citizens’ vetting and none have garnered majority support in any American legislative body to date.
Which serves to say, it’s hard to be a Democrat and still support the foisting of contrived ad hoc judiciaries on our constitutional democracy: you simply cannot be a Democrat and a Communist at the same time.
It’s time for America’s real democrats to make a choice.
Ah. So the drug war is corrupting America. I guess the lessons of alcohol prohibition haven’t sunk in.
#43
I assert that the lie 0bama told that set Rep Wilson off was the one about how 0bama sure does want the government, er, uh Public Option, but hey, I’ve read the polls, uh, the numbers, uh, er I’ve heard your voice, and, uh we can “Have It Your Way”.
At least that was the one for me, I suspect Rep Wilson held his voice on that one only to regret it and exhale the “You lie” comment when 0bama lied about the revision of “the total number of uninsured is 47, no 30 million”, (now)
By then it was just too much: this is solipsism at its worst, and reveals, of course, the tactic of switching to the bait and switch when it looks like there is a stumbling block to getting it handed to his highness wholesale.
One has to remain two, three, even four steps ahead of this guy to know that his only goal is to destroy everything as it exists (the health ins industry, to take one example) and rebuild it (everything) back as you previously knew it in his image, as a monument to you know who.
So that means pretending to go some other way that includes an incremental way with ‘triggers’ that kick in the
GovernmentOption, just not right away.Wilson is going through what Imus went through when he started apologizing to anyone who pretended to listen, and because Wilson said it when he did , they are already spinning it as *guess* *what?* Racism!
There are dems who will vote against it if its not the
Government, re Public Option, and there are dems who will vote against it if it is. The question is will those who are against theGovernmentOption vote against it (thenon-GovernmentOption because it is actually the Government Option in disguise).A package arriving at their houses with a Sicilian message, namely that dems may face sleeping with the fishes, along with a couple aspirin is probably already in the not-official mail, so that they get the message.
These Chicago thugs can be so reasonable.
Public Option = Government Option = No options (Single payer, You)
I don’t think Sullivan would make a very good American and, therefore, anything that would adversely affect his further stay here is fine with me.
An Attorney General in the state of Maryland is looking at prosecuting the camera team that busted ACORN in its eagerness to help a pimp and a prostitute swindle the Federal government out of funding to help them set up a brothel for imported children. Not, you understand, prosecuting the ACORN people for aiding and abetting in a number of Real Crimes, including child prostitution. Now that Maryland AG is being looked at under the white hot flame of Internet interest, and guess what? She’s a connected Democrat, an Obama backer, and has donated lots of money to the party of her choice. Another example of unequal justice in the United States of America, but at least on the internet, we now know *why* ACORN and child porn is thriving in Maryland.
“My view is that no one is above the law, and that when a society based on law prosecutes the powerless and excuses the powerful, it is corroding its own soul.”
Andrew Sullivan
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/the-bigger-picture.html
My question is what Andrew Sullivan would do if it had been someone else, say, Jerry Folwell, who had been caught with drugs, and was discovered to have used political influence to suppress the charges?
aaron (41) writ: “Spindok: I think most of us could care less what he smokes, consumes, or inserts in his rectum.
The issue is why he is “more equal” than the rest of us. Laws for me, but not for thee tend to really piss folks off.”
Well said.
Law is supposed to be equal. Yet it is not.
In this case some want to throw the book at Sullivan because of his opinions. NanCee, above doesnt much care, ” I don’t think Sullivan would make a very good American and, therefore, anything that would adversely affect his further stay here is fine with me.”
You dont care what he does so long as everyone gets the same penalty; deserved or not.
I want to understand a more basic question.
Is this a law which transcends the conservative/liberal divide? Is this something upon which we can now agree?
This is an anomoly. I think that from code-pink to tea-party there is broad agreement on this issue at the core. I also think that there is a gulf between the people and the federal government concerning marijuana law.
This is taboo. Like eating pork for a muslim or jew. Many do, but wont elect anyone who does so openly.
So best strategy is what? Talk about health care, Israel, Iran, ACORN…
Spindok