print* “Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said in an interview published on Sunday that he believes the Pentagon could be behind a rape accusation against him that was later dropped by Swedish prosecutors.”
Exactly my thoughts.
* CONRAD BLACK. “The U.S. Supreme Court had asked the appellate panel in Chicago to reconsider the 2007 jury finding [against Conrad Black] in light of the high court’s June decision to limit the federal ‘honest services’ fraud statute to instances of bribery and kickbacks not present in the Black case,” reports Bloomberg.com.
Better late than never.
From “Crucifying Conrad (Black)”: “The SEC operates on an unconstitutional ex post facto basis; its victims have no way of foreseeing or controlling how vague law will be bent and charges changed in the course of seeking the desired prosecutorial outcome.
Propelling the SEC are politically voracious prosecutors. Aided by George Bush’s latest legislative abomination—the Sarbanes-Oxley Act—they can pursue any business executive as long as a lay jury can be convinced the unfortunate chap intended to mislead or stiff shareholders. This is as easy as pie, given the common man’s affinity for wealth creators. As America’s regulators run out of entrepreneurs to eliminate, so they seek fodder from among foreign investors, hence Black.”
* Justice Department Überbloodhound Patrick Fitzgerald is the worm who used the full power of the state to pursue Black, and now Blago, Gov. Milorad Blagojevich (Fitzgerald has many more scalps under his judicial belt, involving abuse of power, such as the Lewis Libby prosecution). The latter may not be a pleasant person, but I doubt he has done anything that is naturally elicit: “The prosecution has failed to show that the Blagojeviches did anything more than shoot the breeze.”
Thanks for reminding me to find the section of the U.S. Code that forbids “lying to federal agents.” By way of Blago’s indictment, Count Nineteen, it’s 18 USC 1001. As the late Samuel Francis might have said, it’s good to know that the fedgov keeps such a tight lid on crime and terrorism that it has time and space to lock people up for something they said while not under oath. Remembering, however, that Slick Willie Clinton got a slap on the wrist for perjury, doesn’t nailing Blago seem a bit inconsistent?
Ilana, I “pre-posted” on the Blajo-Farce:
http://barelyablog.com/?p=28675
As if there isn’t enough real crime, the government has to manufacture crimes, exaggerate them, “throw the book” at these pseudo-criminals. LYING TO THE GOVERNMENT is a crime! Every President taking the oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution lies to the people!
I took a polygraph (e.g. voodoo) test in 1995. When I told them the truth, they insisted I was lying. I endured 4 – 5 hours of interrogation, threats, and accusations. Ironically, the idiotic ordeal ended when I confessed to something that I did not do (and fingered my boss’ boss on the non-crime). After I gathered my thoughts, I became angry with myself and angrier at the whole process (these morons decided a lie was true and the truth was a lie).
[What was this over? Sounds Kafkaesque.]
It’s wonderful living in a country where prosecutors can spend millions on ‘targeting” people and FBI agents can harass you indefinitely probing for inconsistencies. In 20-20 hindsight, the sex lawsuit against Clinton was groundless, the Monica Lewinsky issue was irrelevant to the groundless lawsuit, and the government committed prosecutorial misconduct when Linda Tripp provided privileged information to Paula Jones’ lawyers to help sandbag Slick Willie.
That’s interesting about the polygraphy, Myron. If the polygraphers decide you are lying when you are telling the truth; and the reverse is also true…of what value is this instrument in determining “the truth”?
The polygraph is inadmissible in court, unless they changed it since I retired. However, it’s long been known as the replacement for the water-board, thumbscrew, or rack. One keeps using the device with its psychological effect, if possible to break the will and elicit a confession. If it doesn’t work, keep trying until you get a confession anyway. In my interrogation class in college (BS in Criminology) the instructor was a FBI agent. His instruction came down to one comment. “Name-rank-and serial number” or in other words, do not answer any questions other than personal identification. Anything else is an admission of guilt. If you admit you were in the vicinity, you admitted you were at the crime and probably did it. The Fifth Amendment should allow more leeway than just “I refuse to answer on the grounds that it will tend to incriminate me.” however, that’s all this dictatorship allows.
First, I’m sure that someone like Clinton could claim to be Chaing Kai Shek and the knobs would not move.
In my case, I was asked if there were ILLICIT FOREIGN CONTACTS that I was trying to hide and I said no. Meanwhile, while facing a blank wall, I was instructed to “think about” illicit foreign contacts and my mind stumbled to an attractive Romanian woman whom I played Pictionary with 10 years earlier (I had to show her the meaning of “garter belt” but that was as illicit as it got) and never saw again! That set off an “ambigiuous biological response” and got them accusing me of hiding foreign contacts. “Am I supposed to list every foreign person I ever met?” “yes” “Well, half the people at MIT were foreigners, I can leave and come back with a directory if you want” – believe me, it was Kafkaesque.
It went from the ridiculous to the ugly.
Meanwhile, all these clowns like Adrich Ames passed these tests in flying colors.
I sure as heck hope you’re not siding in the slightest with that anemic freak whose actions have cost red-blooded American soldiers their safety if not their very lives.
I don’t know if that albino menace actually raped someone’s daughter or if he was, in fact, set up by the Pentagon. And I don’t really care. We should drop a hellfire missile on his soulless carcass.
It hurts the libertarian cause when we bed down with scum to make an otherwise legitimate argument.