U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker stepped up and again demonstrated his commitment to clean government in Iowa. The indictment of powerful and iconic Democrat Senator Matt McCoy on attempted extortion charges on the heels of the CIETC prosecutions sends a clear signal to the Polk County Democrat Machine-the glory days are over.
Democrats have, of course, responded by claiming that the prosecution is entirely political, a strange accusation against the Justice Department that has prosecuted more sitting members of Congress of its own party than perhaps any in history. I didn’t hear the same squeals of unfair play when the Bush/Gonzalez Justice Department indicted Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney, during a general election.
Republicans being intimidated by these same old Democrat complaints of partisanship seems inexplicable. The Clinton/Reno Justice Department litigated against the United States of America to conceal the criminal actions of Bill Clinton and his inner circle. The failure to prosecute the upper level Democrats for the 92-96 campaign finance crimes is perhaps the most singularly significant and partisan malfeasance by any Justice Department in modern history.
Would a politicized Justice Department appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the disclosure of a CIA agent’s confidential identity when the White House knew that the identity of the agent involved was, in fact, not confidential and that no crime had been committed? Would not have a politicized Justice Department pounded Sandy Berger for his very serious national security crimes, right before the ’06 elections? I’ll bet we’d have produced a few thousand more votes in Montana and Virginia, and we’d have a Republican Senate, had we followed that approach.
Speaking of the ’06 elections, where was the partisanship when Matt W (as distinguished from Matt Mc) held the CIETC indictments until after the general election? Does any functioning brain stem entertain the thought that a late October/early November indictment against Ramona Cunningham and Archie Brooks wouldn’t have dramatically affected last year’s elections?
So, hopefully we will not be cowed into silence by these shrill, disingenuous and baseless charges of partisanship. The media simply reveals its liberal bias by repeating the charges. If we are silent or weak on this issue, the liberals will define it and we will lose further credibility with the public when it is our side that, quite literally, has truth, justice and reason going for us in this particular fight.
Democrats have, of course, responded by claiming that the prosecution is entirely political, a strange accusation against the Justice Department that has prosecuted more sitting members of Congress of its own party than perhaps any in history. I didn’t hear the same squeals of unfair play when the Bush/Gonzalez Justice Department indicted Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney, during a general election.
Republicans being intimidated by these same old Democrat complaints of partisanship seems inexplicable. The Clinton/Reno Justice Department litigated against the United States of America to conceal the criminal actions of Bill Clinton and his inner circle. The failure to prosecute the upper level Democrats for the 92-96 campaign finance crimes is perhaps the most singularly significant and partisan malfeasance by any Justice Department in modern history.
Would a politicized Justice Department appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the disclosure of a CIA agent’s confidential identity when the White House knew that the identity of the agent involved was, in fact, not confidential and that no crime had been committed? Would not have a politicized Justice Department pounded Sandy Berger for his very serious national security crimes, right before the ’06 elections? I’ll bet we’d have produced a few thousand more votes in Montana and Virginia, and we’d have a Republican Senate, had we followed that approach.
Speaking of the ’06 elections, where was the partisanship when Matt W (as distinguished from Matt Mc) held the CIETC indictments until after the general election? Does any functioning brain stem entertain the thought that a late October/early November indictment against Ramona Cunningham and Archie Brooks wouldn’t have dramatically affected last year’s elections?
So, hopefully we will not be cowed into silence by these shrill, disingenuous and baseless charges of partisanship. The media simply reveals its liberal bias by repeating the charges. If we are silent or weak on this issue, the liberals will define it and we will lose further credibility with the public when it is our side that, quite literally, has truth, justice and reason going for us in this particular fight.
15 comments:
Well said.
Good one. Squeal like Ned Beatty in Deliverance no doubt.
Sporer,
This post really belongs to the Party Hacks Hall of Fame! We should take this one and one of Gordo’s, and stick them in a history book for future generations to study the sad state of our politics. I don’t have the energy to even go through the hypocrisy, selective memory and tired old stuff in this post.
Based on what we know by reading the paper, I tend to agree with State 29 on this McCoy thing. Still, if illegal activity took place and it can be proven, he should pay for it. I have no need to stand by the guy just because he’s a D.
go read the idictment. what you read in the newspaper was mccoy's press release. he told his story as he wanted it told and left out the critical facts that make this a crime.
Also, watch the video of mccoy insisting he didn't do anything wrong. Watch his eyes in particular. He looks away the second he starts to spout his innocence.
Which begs the question, how many innocent people call a press conference, get all the press out to interview him, do tv interveiws which are aired, and it's all out in the news before the indictment is even revealed?
Had they waited for the press conference,or read the indictment, the register story may have left a different impression than what rf and state 29 saw by just looking at the dmr.
What kind of journalism is that?
The indictment is available on the KCCI TV website.
This isn't an isolated incident. For those of us who have lived in polk county for decades, this is what we've been living with. Lots O corruption stories that never see the full light of day.
Now, we are.
Have you ever heard Willie Farrell's stand up comedy routine about life on the south side?
Ah..the memories.
First of all, as a legislator McCoy was really stupid in getting involved in any business deals with the state. He deserves a serious punishment for that stupidity alone. It really should be made illegal for a legislator to be involved in any kind of business deals with the state. Conflicts of interest and appearance of impropriety are always there.
I also agree about the D machinery in Polk County. There are too many cozy relationships between elected officials, local governments, all sorts of boards and other organizations. When one party is in control for a long time, this type of stuff is hard to avoid. But I still feel D’s should seriously try to clean house in Polk County. I would love to see new blood in the D ranks and throw the good old boys network aside.
I have to say that I don’t see the story in much different light even after reading the indictment. The small scale of the issue and pettiness of it all only underscores McCoy’s stupidity. But as you implied, this story is probably more troubling as part of a greater pattern of things happening in Polk County.
Gronstal’s statement on the KCCI site did not appear overly apologetic at all. I wonder what triggered Sporer’s hyperventilation yesterday.
Yepsen’s column also points out the Whitaker aspect of this story, which is kind of interesting. But I don’t think it’s a big deal. The facts of the case are obviously what matters.
I think you R’s should give the Register at least some props for pretty good and prominent coverage of the various D scandals here in Iowa (remember those huge Ako pics & stories on the front page?) and squabbles among the D presidential contenders. Not too bad for the Des Moines Red Star.
And no, I have not heard Willie Farrell's routine about life on the south side. I take it’s funny.
Other commentary around town coupled with this completely fabricated nonsense about W firing some US attorneys, all of whom serve at the pleasure of the President,propelled my thoughts.
You best describe the quintessential Republican governing premise for me in your last post. Government is inherently inefficient and typically prone to corruption. Government should therefore focus on doing what only government can do, and typically it should be done at the lowest and most immediately accountable level of government that can do the job.
Otherwise people can and should provide for their own needs in the marketplace.
To a certain degree, I have to agree with the R view about government’s proper role. But it does bring to the forefront the issue many D’s point out. With R’s in power, you end up having people in charge who don’t really think government can do much, certainly not much good. Do people with that mentality make good government leaders? It’s kind of like having an ardent communist running Coca Cola. Probably not a great idea. This is how we get heckuva-job-Brownie leaders. And from what we hear, purely political and incompetent appointees have been a big part of the problem in Iraq.
We should also realize when private sector systems are not working well. Our healthcare system is a prime example of that. By any kind of cost-benefit analysis standard, our system simply sucks. Or the fact that our economic competitiveness is declining due to slow and inadequate broadband development. Sometimes government interference or bold leadership can be a good thing.
McCoy's indescretions seem somewhat petty compared to Congressman Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana but huge compared to Scooter Libby's.
So lying under oath is no longer a big deal (Libby)? I suspect lying to Congress is pretty harmless too (current Justice Dept. thing).
I'm with you on Congressman Jefferson. Amazing that the man won a primary and general election after everything that came out. Those Louisiana voters deserve to have the least influential Rep. among the majority party. But let's not forget about Congressmen Cunningham, Ney & Delay either. And if we go down memory lane, as Sporer so often likes to do, we can find plenty of corruption and unethical behavior on both sides.
The bottom line is, power corrupts both R's and D's. Some high ranking officials of both parties engage in unethical behavior. Neither party can claim to be pure. Bad apples on both sides deserve to be exposed and pay for their acts.
RF-Acton was, of course, correct in that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Ask only the second President to be impeached.
There is no doubt that lying to a grand jury is serious and Libby's career and reputation are ruined even after Bush pardons him. The sickening thing about the Libby prosecution isn't that he was prosecuted but the investigation into what was known not to be criminal when the investigation started. So being convicted of impeding and investigation into a non crime sounds a lot like entrapment to the average person who filters through the media falsehood that a CIA agent's identity was criminally exposed-indeed exposed at all.
No one is lying about the US Attorneys, although I don't know why we don't just say we hire/we fire and that's the way it is. You'd think that the damage from appeasing one's political enemies by simply stating the obvious would have been something to have been learned from the whole Joe Wilson thing by this White HOuse.
According to press reports, it seems many people in Congress, both R’s and D’s, feel the Justice Dept. folks lied to them.
This presents me with an opportunity to ask apparent Clinton scandal experts an issue I’ve often been wondering. When an investigation into an old land deal was initiated, how did one end up asking about the President’s sexual relationships? What was the connection and where was the relevance? As a non-lawyer, I have no clue how one can end up from point A to point B. – Truly, I’m just asking here. I know this is old stuff and not necessarily worth rehashing. But I would be interested in an explanation, be it a legal/procedural explanation and/or an R party talking point explanation.
clinton just drifted from one scandal to another.
the monica thing exploded when clinton committed perjury in the Paula Jones case. interestingly jones lawyers were able to conduct discovery on lewinsky in the jones case by operation of a law clinton signed.
anyway, then clinton tried to get monica out of the country and helped her draft a perjured affidavit.
the rs went after clinton on monicas so hard because his felonies were so obvious. but we were incompotent at it and couldn't drive the point home.
as for this da flap, what lies? what is there to lie about? the president can fire a da whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants.
i wonder if the democrats have ever heard of the tenure of office act and its constitutional treatment>
Thanks for the party talking point explanation on Bubba & Monica.
Regarding the Justice Dept. thing. I don't know what Fox is reporting, but the capitalistic profit-seeking mainstream American channels are saying many R's and D's are having difficulty with the fact that the Justice folks' testimony under oath appears to contradict the emails that were uncovered. So either those people were lying under oath or they didn't know what was going on. Liars or just incompetent. Either way, not so good.
US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.
Post a Comment