home

Hollywood Fred: Against Special Counsels Before He Was For Them Before He Was For Perjury

Hollywood actor/former lobbyist/current Beltway heartthrob and, former ineffectual Senator Fred Thompson condones perjury, obstruction of justice and hypocrisy. First, his defense of a convicted perjurer and obstructor of justice:

I have called for a pardon for Scooter Libby. When you rectify an injustice using the provisions of the law, just as when you reverse an erroneous court decision, you are not disregarding the rule of law, you are enforcing and protecting it.

Free a convicted perjurer and obstructor of justice! No justice! No peace! Who knew Holly-Fred was a dirty, effing hippie? Must be those Holly-Fred values.

Holly-Fred hates careeer prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who convicted terrorists but loves leakers of classified information. What a tough guy! He hates Special Counsels! Well, those that convict Republicans anyway. He hated them during the Reagan Administration but he loved loved loved them during the Clinton Administration. Look at Holly-Fred cry crocodile tears for Ken Starr, after speaking against the Independent Counsel law:

. . . ®ecently, we've been exposed to a new flaw in the process, and this is they're vulnerable, the independent counsels themselves are vulnerable from attack by those who they are investigating.

Ken Starr, a political hack if ever there was one, who made sure he made big bucks before returning to hackery, was a poor maligned soul while an outstanding career non-partisan prosecutor gets smeared by Holly-Fred.

What a piece of work Holly-Fred guy is. Yes, I can see why he is the new GOP heartthrob. I really can.

Oh, in case you were wondering, Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed following a procdeure Holly-Fred himself endorsed. Hypocrite.

< Libby Lawyers Ask Court for Probation | NYPD Finally Starts Obeying Court Order, Sometimes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:39:51 PM EST
    Wow. BTD loses his sh!t. Have you been drinking?

    Also, I'm still breathlessly awaiting your post criticizing President Clinton for "condoning" car jacking, embezzlment, drug dealing, tax fraud, theft, unregistered firearms, oh and, of course, perjury. He provided pardons for all those crimes and more.

    Are you simply opposed to the policy of presidential pardons?

    And I'm not sure why you're freaking out about Ken Starr at all. Thompson didn't even talk about Starr in the interview you quoted. Can you actually provide a link to support your claim that Thompson hated the independent prosecutor law during the Reagan Administration but he "loved loved loved" it during the Clinton Administration?

    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by LarryE on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 02:28:07 PM EST
    Are you simply opposed to the policy of presidential pardons?

    That's a false premise, asserting one must either be for pardons (and therefore approve all instances) or against pardons (and therefore disapprove all instances). The option of case-by-case consideration is not allowed. (And yes, I know I've stretched the meaning of "premise." You'll live.)

    Pardons are usually granted on the grounds of someone having "suffered enough" or some similar formulation. But Thompson says his intent is to "rectify an injustice." That is, he's not looking for a "pardon" for Libby, he's looking for exoneration, for something that can be used to portray Libby (and by extension the whole White House cabal) as a victim of political machinations by the embodiment-of-evil Democrats and their willing tool, (Republican) Pat Fitzgerald.

    That alone would seem to clearly distinguish Thompson's Libby argument from anything Clinton may have done.

    Parent

    Excellent (none / 0) (#22)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    Larry, yours is an excellent appraisal of the situation. It is not, however, what BTD said. He wrote:

    Free a convicted perjurer and obstructor of justice! No justice! No peace! Who knew Holly-Fred was a dirty, effing hippie? Must be those Holly-Fred values.

    BTD posted a rambling, near-incoherent tirade about Fred Thompson and Ken Starr. My genuine first thought was that BTD must be sloshed.

    Admittedly, I responded with something that doesn't meet my usual self-imposed standards for commenting. My only defense is that, like in many competitive sports, comment quality seems to rise and fall depending on the quality of the writing that is being responded to.

    Larry, you've obviously don't suffer from that problem, because yours is without a doubt the best writing in this entire post.

    Parent

    Um... (none / 0) (#38)
    by LarryE on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 08:56:53 PM EST
    ...thank you - I, uh, guess....

    : feeling flustered :

    Parent

    when your post gets deleted (for swearing), (none / 0) (#3)
    by Compound F on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:56:01 PM EST
    don't think it was because of your sharp repartee.

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:06:29 PM EST
    I haven't actually seen Jeralyn cut any posts for "sharp repartee."

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:33:05 PM EST
    From some of you, there is not much of a threat of sharp repartee.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:30:46 PM EST
    No profanity Gabe.

    When did you see me praise Clinton's pardons?

    BTW, do you have a problem with them?

    BTW, are you in favor of pardoning Libby? Why?

    BTW, the quote from Thompson is about Starr.

    BTW, you loooooooooove Holly-Fred don't you?

    Never seen you so passionate before.

    It's loooove!

    Heh.

    Parent

    The "junior high myspace blog" comment (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 02:46:44 PM EST
    describing BTD's contributions to TL was clearly an over statement.

    Parent
    See Comment #8 (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:21:51 PM EST
    BTW Gabe (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:32:20 PM EST
    You think Thompson did not hate the Independent Counsel law during the Reagan Administration?

    Oh, Gabe, love is a beautiful thing.

    Be still your heart ay?

    Parent

    Gee... (none / 0) (#14)
    by TomStewart on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 11:12:09 AM EST
    I thought it might take at least two comments for someone to bring up the 'Clinton did it to!' defense. I stand corrected.

    Parent
    Great opening sentence. Couldn't (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:33:53 PM EST
    be more clear.

    Another Repbulican scumbag (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Johnbo on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    Anyone looking for a measure of Thompson's character need look no further than his reported attempts to recruit Tim Griffin to his campaign. Griffin, a key Rove deputy, was one of the replacement attorney's for one of the nine recently fired U.S. attorneys. He replaced H.E."Bud" Cummins in Arkansas who was a competent and respected U.S. attorney. Griffin, who has almost no experience as a prosecutor, does have one area where he excels; experience on the Republican elections squad where he is alleged to have been involved in illegal voter "caging" operations in the '04 elections - as Monica Goodling recently testified. At the time he was a research director for the Republican National Committee.

    Griffin, as a Rove protégée, is in the direct linage of Republican political operatives that go back to Lee Atwater who was Rove's mentor. Atwater was single-handedly responsible for introducing the term "kinder and gentler" into recent American vernacular when Bush the Elder started using that term after winning his election against Michael Dukakis. The campaign was noteworthy for the ugly political campaign run by Atwater and Bush the Elder promised to govern in a "kinder and gentler" way. Atwater apologized for what he had done years later as he approached death. His campaign 20 years ago would look laughably old fashioned by the todays standards set by his devotee Rove.

    Griffin fits perfectly into the Rovian campaign to win elections and damn the rules (Sort of like the Bush Administration in general). The use of the U.S. attorneys to tilt the voting system in favor of the Republicans is just one example.

    The fact that Thompson's first move is to hire Griffin speaks volumes about what kind of person he is. The good news is that his cigar-chomping, good-old-boy act isn't going to go anywhere fast with Americans fed up with way too much southern charm and folksy simplicity passing for leadership and masking the true "values" of todays Republicans.

    Sigh......... (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 05:36:46 PM EST
    All that is well and good.... But have you read the book "Blood Sport?"

    It isn't about Repubs..

    Parent

    Scumbags (con't) (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Johnbo on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 07:19:55 PM EST
    First, I'm not suggesting that running for national office in modern-day America is for the faint of heart.  It's not.  It's a contact sport.  But, there's such a think as honesty and integrity - both of which are in short supply in this current crowd of Republicans.  Rove is the poster boy for the most corrupt administration in modern U.S. history.  And Thompson is just another garden-variety, ethically-challenged Republican.

    Second, I'm not saying there aren't corrupt Democrats.  I'm just as happy to see them outed.  But, the cottage industry that exploded around "exposés" of the Clintons in the 90's was equal parts hyperbole, half-truths and hysteria.  Although I'm not familiar with the book you list, "Blood Sport", it appears from a quick peek at Amazon.com reviews that it is an example of yet another attempt to cash in on Clintonmania.

    Here's a quote from one of the reader/reviewers that comes after several paragraphs of detailed rebuttals to numerous mistakes:

    "Perhaps worst of all, he tries to link the Vince Foster suicide to Whitewater. This was disproved time and time again -- by the Park Police investigation, by the FBI, by Robert Fiske's independent counsel, and by Kenneth Starr himself."

    Maybe you should try reading a source that is credible.


    Parent

    Johnbo (1.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 08:21:36 PM EST
    My point was, and is, that Rove and W are fading into the sunset. Don't you think it time to find a new horse to beat?

    Trust me. Neither will be on the ticket.

    And why do I never hear anyone from the Left condemn one of the most terrible attempts to influence an election in the country's history. I refer, of course to the fake memo and CBS allowing Dan Rather to use it.

    And yes, there was a fair amount of pileing on Clintin, but didn't he prove them right with the Marc Rich pardon??

    Parent

    Rather and the Bush Guard story (none / 0) (#41)
    by Johnbo on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 11:26:33 PM EST
    The Bush Administration may be in its last throws (thank God) but the machine that Rove has helped create has spawned people like Tim Griffin and these Rovebots will be with us for the foreseeable future. If there is a serious investigation that brings the roof down on anyone that's guilty, there's a possibility that Rove's machine will fade.

    On the Rather issue, the memos were investigated at length by CBS and never shown conclusively to be faked.  The Thornburg investigation left conservatives furious when the panel failed to conclude that the memos were forgeries and that the National Guard story was fueled by anti-Bush bias inside CBS.   However, the panel concluded that the National Guard story was rushed to the air for competitive reasons and characterized the story as a train wreck: "Basic journalistic steps were not carried out in a manner consistent with accurate and fair reporting, leading to countless misstatements and omissions."

    While the PROCESS was questionable, THE MATERIAL IN THEM WAS AUTHENTIC, as cooberated by three people most in a position to know at the time of Bush's "service".  One of those, Marian Carr Knox, the secretary to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian who was Bush's immediate commander in the TANG, told CBS that she believes the documents are fake but that they reflected the sentiments of Kilian.  "I know that I didn't type them. However, the information in those is correct".  Rather has said repeatedly - and apparently no one is listening - that the material in the documents is accurate.  

    It was an important story because it showed how Bush had been reprimanded for failing to keep current on his medical exams which caused him to be removed from flying status and how the superiors in the unit leaned on Col. Kilian to "sugarcoat" Bush's records.  Most guard units at the time were a ticket out of the Viet Nam war and, as such, were next to impossible to get into.  So, part of the CBS story was how Bush's family connection helped him get in the unit and avoid Viet Nam.  And, even after using the TANG to avoid Viet Nam, the Boston Globe found that Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligations in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.  The story also put Bush's history during Viet Nam in stark contrast to Kerry's record.  

    To make sure that Bush's records were never going to be a problem, a team under the direction of Karen Hughes, Governor Bush's Chief of Staff, contacted the TANG while Bush was governor of Texas and requested Bush's files.  The conversation was overheard by Col. Bill Burkett, who at the time was the assistant to the commanding general.  Burkett says they wanted to remove anything that might be embarrassing. When Burkett later went public with this, the Guard retaliated.  He was shipped out on a foreign assignment and returned over a year later with a serious disease.  At that point, the Guard refused to cover his medical expenses.  You might find it interesting to know that Burkett was the CBS's source for the questionable documents.  You can see why he might be a little bitter and why he might have an axe to grind.

    Oh, and the Rich pardon?  Guess who Rich's attorney was at the time - Scooter Libby.  Maybe he can work on his own pardon now.


    Parent

    Johnbo (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:20:44 AM EST
    We're way off topic..

    My reply is/will be over on Thursday's Open Thread.

    Parent

    See you wherever (none / 0) (#47)
    by Johnbo on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:42:17 PM EST
    Yeah, the Bush Guard story is a long ways from the Thompson-is-a-stud story.  But, you, like many victims of the conservative media echo chamber, have drunk the kool-aid on the "Rathergate" story and come back for more.  I consider it my civic duty to try and set the record straight.  

    It's a story I know well and have followed with interest because I was a fighter pilot in a guard unit at the same time as the Chimp and I know that scene well.  And it illustrates perfectly the craven manipulation of the facts that Bush is involved in, was involved in, and forever will be involved in.  The sad part is when all the fawning Bushbots in the right-wing media provide him cover and their clueless audience spouts their talking points like the loyal little toadies that they are.


    Parent

    Talk's cheap. (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:57:42 PM EST
    Well, drag yourself over to the open thread and let's boogie.

    Parent
    Johnbo (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    I see you  haven't shown up......

    All hat and no cattle, eh??

    Parent

    Space cowboy (none / 0) (#51)
    by Johnbo on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:47:23 AM EST
    Sorry, I don't know where the "open thread" is.  I'm new to this site so don't know my way around yet.

    Parent
    Johnbo (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 10:50:22 AM EST
    The open thread is the one named Open Thread..

    Perhaps the title of "Thursday Open Thread" was too complicated for someone who lives only to educate the rest of us...

    Parent

    Question (1.00 / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:47:01 PM EST
    Big Tent was for pardons before he was against them.

    Come on BTD. The main game is on. No more arguments about defunding vs not voting for not defunding and what the neighborhood thinks...

    We've got us a real sure enough Pres i dent al E lection going on right c' heer...

    You be up fir it??

    Which pardon was I for Jimbo? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:28:20 PM EST
    this'un?? (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    Does that mean you are against pardons??

    How about ... what his name that Clinton cut loose..

    Marc.... Rich... yeah that's it

    Parent

    I am agin it (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 12:08:04 PM EST
    Next?

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    I'm impressed.

    Parent
    W66 (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 08:12:55 PM EST
    Yes. It is difficult, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

    Parent
    W66 (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:43:54 AM EST
    Why do you dislike Israel??

    Parent
    DA (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 10:36:47 AM EST
    yadda yadda

    Parent
    DA (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 08:09:44 AM EST
    yadda yadda

    DA (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    What part of "yadda yadda" don't you understand?

    DA (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:19:34 PM EST
    What part of "yadda yadda" don't you understand?

    Parent
    DA (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:55:39 PM EST
    What part of "yadda yadda" don't you understand??

    Parent
    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:34:20 PM EST
    Hollywood Fred: Against Special Counsels Before He Was For Them Before He Was For Perjury

    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 10:45:35 AM EST
    If you ask PPJ a sensible question (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dark Avenger on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 07:46:08 AM EST
    it's a good way to confuse him.

    Actually I think "yadda yadda" is a nice comeback to such a personal attack.

    The continuation of its use just indicates that I find his comments to be "yadda yadda." You would think he would give up, but he just keeps on...

    Now, didn't he say something about doing the same thing and expecting a different result is insanity???? His problem is that he fails to understand that he is the person "doing something."

    BTW - I note you didn't comment on the personal attack that started this absolutely useless exchange.

    Parent

    pardons (none / 0) (#9)
    by diogenes on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:50:04 PM EST
    If Bill and Hillary were "copresidents" and "two for one", as we were often told in the 1990's by the two of them, then I take it that she earns the same scorn for all the Bill pardons (Marc Rich!!!).

    Pardons and commutations... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 02:06:42 PM EST
      can serve good, even noble purposes. That the pardoning power is often exercised in what we might consider abitrary or even abusive and corrupt ways should not make us lose sight of the fact the power can also be exercised to provide a degree of corrective justice or sometimes just deserved mercy.

    Decon (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:21:24 PM EST
    Do you agree that the Mark Rich pardon was a very smelly thing and gives the appearance of corruption?

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:43:31 PM EST
    but if we eliminate every process that is amenable to corruption we have to eliminate everything.

      The answer isn't to do away with powers corrupt men might abuse but to keep corrupt men from having the power-- admittedly, easier said than done,

    Parent

    Decon (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 04:18:01 PM EST
    Nicely put and I agree.

    Did you vote for Clinton??

    Parent

    I did in 92. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 04:42:31 PM EST
     In 96, I voted for Nader (but obviously I knew Clinton was going to win.)

      I don't support Hillary both because I don't trust her and because I think she is the one candidate the republicans have a very good chance of beating.

     

    Parent

    Decon (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    I almost did in '92, but I know southern politics all too well... so I voted for the Admiral...

    In '96 I voted for Dole just for the helluva of it. He seemed a decent guy and I was sick of Clinton.

    In both cases I knew the votes were a waste...

    In 00 I voted for Bush because I couldn't stand Algore... Ditto in 04 except change the Demo name..

    I disgaree re Hillary. She is the one candidate that the Repubs can't beat. Obama, et al have zero chance.

    Parent