 |
The page cannot be found |
| The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is unavailable. | |
Please try the following:
HTTP 404 - File not found |
|
Posted on 10/13/2003 12:07:00 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
All three of the people featured in this column have engaged in some form of sleazy politics in the last week. All of them need to be put down, fast and hard, not just because they earned it but as a lesson to others. We begin with the one that everyone who has a TV knows about, Kobe Bryant's lawyer in the preliminary hearing in Colorado.
Bryant's attorney, Pamela Mackey, asked a question about prior sexual conduct of the complaining witness in this rape case. She asked it of Detective Doug Winters, who was the only witness in the first day of the preliminary hearing. But first, a word about why a preliminary hearing is conducted. It is only to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed, and that the defendant committed it. Nothing more.
And once that is accomplished, including by the presentation of hearsay evidence (which is admissible here, but not in the trial itself), the defendant is bound over for trial. We now know why the defense decided to have this hearing with the press in the courtroom, rather than waive this hearing. They planned to smear the complaining witness, who was not present, and were willing to violate legal ethics and Colorado law to get that result.
Ms. Mackey did two things that she knew were illegal and objectionable. The minor one was to mention the name of that witness six times in less than a day. She claimed this was "accidental." A competent trial lawyer does not make the same mistake six times in a row by accident. This was deliberate. (Of course, the name of the complaining witness will come out when she takes the stand to testify at the trial. But before then, under Colorado law, her name should not be used.)
The second thing that Ms. Mackey did was not merely illegal, not merely unethical, it was reprehensible. She asked a question of Detective Winters about prior sexual conduct of the victim. Under Colorado's "rape shield" law (many states have similar laws), there is only one circumstance in which it is permissible to ask such a question. As I understand that state's law, if the defense believes such a question should be asked, it should make a "proffer" (an offer in chambers, not open court) of the facts which make this question proper in this particular case. Only after the court rules it admissible, may such a question be asked. And Ms. Mackey, as an experienced trial lawyer, was well aware that her question was totally improper when she said it in front of the press.
Judge Fred Gannett was so appalled by this question coming out that he then adjourned the hearing until this week. In my judgment, this conduct by Ms. Mackey was a flagrant contempt of court. Here's what Judge Gannett should do: Find Ms. Mackey in contempt of court and fine her about $50,000 for what she did. Close the continuation of the hearing to the press, to prevent her from engaging in any more "poisoning of the well." And finally, refer the matter to the appropriate legal ethics body to determine whether Ms. Mackey should be reprimanded, punished or even disbarred.
Her conduct last week was that obvious, that wrong, and that serious.
The second person on the hit parade of bad conduct is Ashley Bell, President of the College Democrats. He is the one of the three who might not be considered a "public person." So I note that I left messages on his cell phone and his home phone, and sent an e-mail to his office, all seeking to interview him before publishing this column. There was no response.
Mr. Bell sent an e-mail to the members of his national organization about Bobby Jindal, who was the leader in the open primary for Governor of Louisiana last week. He is a Republican and will go into a run-off election against the leading Democrat candidate, Lt. Governor Kathleen Blanco.
Before we get into what Mr. Bell wrote about Mr. Jindal, a few comments are in order about Mr. Jindal's extraordinary background. Bobby Jindal was born in Louisiana thirty-two years ago; his parents had emigrated from India. In his brief career he has been an Assistant Secretary of the Health and Human Services in the Bush administration. He is also former head of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals and also former President of the University of Louisiana system.
Someone who prefers that a Democrat, rather than a Republican, be elected as the next Governor of that state, could be expected to attack the policies that Mr. Jindal might pursue. But here is what Mr. Bell wrote:
"Jindal is Arab American and the Republicans token attempt to mend bridges long burnt with the Arab American community." He added that the candidate is "Bush's personal ‘Do Boy' Bobby Jindal." While I am unfamiliar with the term "Do Boy," in context it seems to mean the same as the screen name chosen by a very successful black actor of fifty years ago, "Stepin Fetchit."
First of all, these are incredibly stupid comments. Mr. Bell is a law student at LSU. Even an elementary school student who can read a map or a globe knows that India is in Asia, not the Middle East, and that it is not an Arab country. But worse than stupid, this is a thoroughly racist comment.
The College Democrats are "the official student outreach arm of the Democratic Party." If the Democratic Party is concerned about racism in the United States, it will instruct the College Democrats that they must dismiss Mr. Bell on the spot, or the DNC will terminate their official recognition immediately.
Mr. Bell subsequently issued an apology for his comments, saying, "But in Fact Indian American is the politically correct terminology.So thank you to the curteous college dems - who let us know of the terminology mix up. We in no way meant to offend anyone and aplogize for any offense if taken." The egregious typos in this are Mr. Bell's. Obviously, his writing skills are equal to his geographic skills, and to his racial understanding skills. This is a lame apology for his geography. His racism remains standing.
Somehow, I doubt that the DNC and the College Democrats have the integrity to take such steps and dump Mr. Bell. I'm not holding my breath.
The third winner in our negative contest this week is John Podesta, former Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and former head of People for the American Way. This award is shared by certain well-heeled Democrats who chose to remain anonymous. An article in the New York Times provided the grist for this particular award.
The article is, "Notion Building (Clintonistas plot their return to power)" in The New York Times Magazine, 12 October, 2003, written by Matt Bai. Mr. Bai recounts that he was invited to a private meeting, under condition that he not say where it was or who was there, other than the featured speaker.
He describes the meeting as taking place, "in a spacious living room in suburban Maryland, where about 50 former ambassadors and administration officials, mostly from the Clinton era, have been gathering regularly to grill the party's presidential candidates." But on this occasion, it was not one of the Democrat candidates for President who came, hat in hand, to stand on the carpet before the rich and powerful. It was John Podesta. The article says, "His goal is to build an organization to rethink the very idea of liberalism, a reproduction in mirror image of the conservative think tanks that have dominated the country's political dialogue for a generation."
The vehicle for this good work would be Mr. Podesta's new organization, the Center for American Progress. He said this organization is "slated to operate with a $10 million budget next year," from big donors like George Soros. While the idea behind this new think tank was to develop and promulgate new ideas, Mr. Podesta's specific complaint was that the Democrats lack an effective slogan. He said, "Where's our eight-word bumper sticker?"
During the Q&A period after Mr. Podesta's remarks, the reporter came to the following conclusion: "Most of the questioners seemed to assume as a matter of faith that the liberal message would naturally triumph in America if not for Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and a president who, they insist, has lied." It is clear that the people at the meeting did not see the sardonic humor in this situation. It is unclear whether the reporter saw it, or merely accidentally reported it.
The article then discusses at some length the success of the Heritage Foundation, a very effective think tank on the conservative side of politics. It noted that the success of Heritage was not a short-term thing, but required decades to accomplish. Surprisingly, there is no mention whatsoever of the Brookings Institute, a well-established liberal think tank with solid academic credentials. Perhaps Brookings was left out because the principal difference between it and Heritage is that voters are just not buying the ideas that Brookings puts out.
In a separate interview with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Daschle said, "They have a dozen think tanks, and we have none ... We don't come close to matching their firepower in the media."
The theme of the entire article, which the reporter may not have noticed, is the Democrats assume that if they construct the proper institution with the proper amount of funding, it will magically produce ideas that win elections. It is missing the point that in American political development, ideas come first, and then institutions are constructed to carry out those ideas. Witness the Congress that wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Convention that wrote the Constitution, the conduct of every successful war America has ever fought, and assorted civilian successes from the settlement of the West under the Homestead Laws, to the G.I. Bill and school vouchers, to the expansion of home ownership under federally guaranteed mortgages.
While there is much talk in the article about "big ideas" and "thinking outside the box," Podesta indicates that his think tank will not turn against any basic Democrat constituencies. On education he said, "Of all the institutions that cause problems for society, I don't think the teachers' union is one of them." In short, offices will be rented and filled with earnest humans, papers will be generated, e-mails and phone calls will fall like rain across the country. But no real attempt at basic analysis of what's wrong in education (and presumably other areas) will take place.
A discussion thread on the Internet brought this article to my attention. The best suggestion on that thread for the "bumper sticker" that the Democrats lack was this: "Socialism: We Still Believe It Can Work Here."
Think about it. Here is a reporter for the New York Times describing a meeting of Democrats that took place in such enforced secrecy you would think all the men were wearing garter belts and all the women were carrying whips. Ideas that have to hide from the general public are not exactly ideas that will win over the general public.
What this reporter has just described is a meeting of the Board of Directors of a buggy whip factory. In 1924.
Mr. Podesta obviously believes in what he is doing. Those who are writing the fat checks to support him also must believe in what he is doing. But he hasn't a clue about the nature of political philosophy.
The Framer he is emulating is not James Madison or Thomas Jefferson. It is Aaron Burr. Burr was the only one who believed in winning, regardless of ideology. He created Tammany Hall, the first big city political machine. He tried to steal the Presidency from Thomas Jefferson. He killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. And he fomented two different revolutions intended to split off parts of the United States from the union.
Ultimately, Burr became a mere footnote in the sweep of American history. That will be Podesta's fate as well, and the fate of all who support his clueless think tank. However, this inevitable failure will take decades to mature.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.
- 30 -
Please remember, if you like what I have to offer, please visit my website and sign up to help.
John / Billybob
|
The page cannot be found |
| The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is unavailable. | |
Please try the following:
HTTP 404 - File not found |
|
If she doesn't, then, yes, she should be disbarred and fined.
Would you expect anything less from a Democrat?
Mr. Bell is a law student at LSU
Which may not speak well for the admissions criteria to said University.
She used it 6 times!
Also, as anyone who's ever run for public office can tell you, if you are honest it is a money-losing proposition. It takes a tremendous amount of time and money, time away from family, and "all those tings," to quote a recent successful candidate in California.
So I respectfully disagree with your comment.
John / Billybob
Even if she is right on the facts, her method was sleaze.
Great column. My favorite line above.
No problem. I was respectful when I disagreed with your use of the site for self promotion. I stated it clearly as my opinion and never said Jim had a problem with it.
BTW, I enjoy most of your posts, which is irrelevant to my opinion on this issue.
So we disagree, respectfully.
This judge has already shown that he's favorable to the prosecution.
Perhaps Mackey felt she had to get this out publicly or she wouldn't have been allowed to.
Agreed. Better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Agreed.
In addition he is a columnist for UPI and is very well published and versed.
OK
If you are not familiar with him you should not offer such a pithy comment.
pith·y
adj. 1. Precisely meaningful; forceful and brief:
I am familar with him and have stated my opinion on the use of the thread and I think pithy comments are good, not bad.
Maybe from your parents. Or your spouse. But not from the judge who dangles the sword over your client's fate.
Perhaps, but if she wins this case or gets her client off, she'll never have to worry about what this judge thinks of her word. As Sinkspur has pointed out, this judge has already shown he's predisposed to the Prosecution. When that's the case, someone on the defense has to shake things up. She did. She did her job. She did her job well.
That paints a grim picture for challengers to incumbents. I realistically assess my chances of defeating the six-term incumbent (who has NOT, however, yet won a race overwhelmingly, it's always been close), as 1 in 20 up to 1 in 10, depending on how much organization I can build and how much funding I can raise.
The only odds-on chance I would have is if the incumbent decides not to run. (There are several reasons why he might do that. I won't go into those here.) If the incumbent, Charlie Taylor, decides to take his vested pension and go home, there will be a flood of both Republican and Democrat candidates who jump into the race. (At present, there are two apparent Republicans and three apparent Democrats.)
My secondary purpose in assembling the people and funds for a "real" campaign as opposed to one that his hopeless from the beginning, is to be far ahead of any possible challenger, in the event that something takes Taylor out of the race. I will know by late December how that all stands.
Hope that answers your important question.
John / Billybob
But then again, I don't post my opinions to please anyone. Neither BTW, does Billy bob. And he shouldn't.
Couldn't any lawyer in Colorado file an ethics complaint against Ms. Mackay? Does it have to be the judge?
Not that it would go anywhere. As you know, if a complaint is filed against a lawyer in NC, the lawyer gets to hire one or more lawyers to defend him in the resulting hearing, while the complainant can neither appear in person, nor hire a lawyer to represent him. Furthermore, the results are (wink, wink) kept secret, even from the complainant.
As far as whether the action hurts Kobe's case - Let's put it this way. If your lawyer were rising out of her chair for an objection, which reaction would you want the judge to have: (a) "Wait - Ms. Mackey must have a cogent legal argument to present on this point", or (b) "Aw, Jeez, not more of this bulls**t."????? If she had the goods, and wanted it in the press, she should've found a better way to get it out there than circumventing the clear rules of the court.
Even if you are not a lawyer, you should see that point as correct.
And notice that some of the lamestream media even referred to the "multiple partners" question as EVIDENCE. Any attorney at any time can get, if needed, a jury instruction telling them that the questions and arguments of counsel ARE NOT EVIDENCE and should not be taken as such. The average reporter; however, the average reporter/editor is too dumb to have a clue about that.
John / Billybob
Good. They're blowing their money on Podesta's worthless ideas instead of on something that will actually help them win. Go for it.
Perhaps the answer to those two questions about Mr. Bell's survival in the face of incompetence is found in his racial category. See photo on the College Democrats website.
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
The Grievance Committees of the various state bars are slow, are prejudiced in favor of keeping the lawyer in the profession, but they are neither hopeless or useless.
John / Billybob
There already IS a process of exposing sleazy politicians, including hourly updates. It's called FreeRepublic. You may have heard of it. It's been in all the papers. LOL.
We are all in the business of exposing feet of clay -- but we're getting good at it because of your creation. Thanks again.
John / Billybob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.