Sexual misconduct by public officials: “If I understand the history correctly…”
…says Orin Kerr, law professor at George Washington Law School and expert in criminal procedure and computer crime law:
If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair, who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy.
History? Only if you’re a time traveler. As a law professor, Kerr should know better, because we actually don’t yet know that Hastert’s payments were about “sexual contact with a boy.” That’s the rumor and the unsourced report, but it’s a rumor only at this point.
The substance of the rumor is consistent with the idea that there was some sort of sexual conduct with an underage student (most likely male) while Hastert was a teacher and coach (which had to have been prior to 1981, when he quit that line of work), and that the allegations only began in 2010. We don’t know any of this, plus we don’t even know why the allegations weren’t made until 2010, or whether the allegations are true or were just a threat to rake Hastert over the coals with allegations that, in the current climate, would be believed to be true whether they were actually true or not.
There is another flaw with Kerr’s restatement of history, most particularly this phrase: “the President was impeached for lying about a sexual affair.” Actually, it’s not difficult to know what Clinton was impeached for; it’s a matter of history. All you have to do is look at the articles of impeachment:
Article I… On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States…
Article II:…engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:
(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.
(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.
(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him…
It goes on and on, but you get the drift. The summary version is that Clinton was impeached not for mere “lying about a sexual affair” but for lying under oath and for trying to get others to do so, too, and for doing all of this while president of the United States. This differentiates him from the others that Kerr mentions, and it’s an important distinction rather than a minor one.
And I say this as a person who does not believe Clinton should have been impeached, nor do I believe he committed perjury in the technical legal sense, although I do believe he lied under oath (if you’re interested, you can see some of my reasoning here, which includes links to several other discussions I had on the subject).
I just spent some time trying to figure out what Kerr’s politics are by reading previous writings of his, and it’s been surprisingly difficult. But from articles such as this one I’ve decided that Kerr is conservative, so his little history lesson doesn’t seem to have been based on a desire to whitewash Clinton’s history. Perhaps he’s just expressing disgust or bemusement that so many public officials have had such unadmirable private lives, and that what goes around seems to come around.
But there’s a huge disparity among the men’s offenses. Gingrich and Livingston were simply cheating on their wives (if such a thing be simple), and for Livingston the infidelity was in the past; he resigned when threatened by a magazine with exposure. Gingrich was already known to have cheated years earlier on his first wife with the woman who became his second, and he was repeating the pattern later when he cheated on the second to marry the third, to whom he is still married. Although not especially laudable, to say the least, these were private acts by public figures that involved neither crimes (such as child abuse) nor lying under oath.
On the other hand, Clinton not only lied under oath to cover up his sexual misconduct, but that misconduct was with a White House intern who was only 22, not just a random woman. And if and only if the Hastert allegations are true, his conduct constituted lying under oath about the intent of the bank withdrawals as well as the crime of sexual contact (either consensual or non; we don’t know which) with a minor student.
I don’t see any way to equate the offenses of Clinton and the supposed ones of Hastert with those of Gingrich and Livingston, and I think it’s misleading to imply there is any sort of equivalence. It makes a cute and seemingly clever sound bite, but no, I don’t think Kerr seems to understand the history of it. Nor does he appear to understand—or at least to acknowledge, because I think he certainly understands—the law of it.
[ADDENDUM: A little clarification here—
I understand, as I already stated, that Kerr’s pretty much a conservative (on the libertarian side). And I understand that it’s a joke he was making—after all, I wrote “It makes a cute and seemingly clever sound bite.”
I just think it’s a joke that fails. Obviously, I may be in a minority, but I don’t find it funny. Maybe I just got up on the wrong side of the bed today, but I think the differences are very large between what was done in each case, and I think the human cost of what’s going on with Hastert isn’t funny either.]
Over at American Thinker, NewsMachete wonders about how it is the GOP is ever vexatiously craven in the eyes of grass root republicans and conservatives. The title: Why do Mitch McConnell and John Boehner act like they have a Denny Hastert problem? It would explain much.
Kerr is just repeating what most people think because they have been spun by the Clintons and the MSM.
The facts and the law never bother Libs.
Also a sad commentary on legal education. Law profs are supposed to be smart.
Cornhead:
Kerr is not a liberal. As far as I can tell (at least, from the article about Obamacare I linked in the post), he’s fairly conservative.
George Pal:
I would guess that most politicians have skeletons in their closet that they’re afraid will be revealed. But I don’t think most of them have anything quite as serious as what is rumored about Hastert.
It’s a joke. Kerr’s a libertarian.
Wooly Bully,
I understand that Kerr’s pretty much a conservative (on the libertarian side). I already said that. And I understand that it’s a joke—after all, I wrote “It makes a cute and seemingly clever sound bite.”
I just think it’s a joke that fails. Obviously, I may be in a minority, but I don’t find it funny. Maybe I just got up on the wrong side of the bed today, but I think the differences are very large here, and I think the human cost of what’s going on with Hastert isn’t funny.
Neo-neocon,
On the one hand, nothing as serious. On the other, hypocrisy attaches to republicans as barnacles to a hull. Liberals may be dogs, adulterers, molesters, and sexual harassers but they are never ever hypocrites. One would have first to pay tribute to virtue to be a hypocrite. Liberals can sleep easy because… anything goes.
“for lying under oath and for trying to get others to do so”
Trying? If I recall correctly Clinton persuaded Monica Lewinsky to sign an affidavit that said nothing happened. I think that’s called subornation of perjury.
I agree with Neo in not finding Kerr’s piece funny. But what bugs me most about it is that it’s helping the current Clinton strategy of making sure everyone talks about how corrupt everyone/the system is. Also that it’s in the Washington Post, which means wide circulation.
Ann:
It definitely minimizes Clinton’s actions, which serves the Clintons’ needs, whether Kerr meant to do that or not.
What Clinton did deserved impeachment and removal.
But it first deserved resignation and contrition.
It may have just been a coincidence, or maybe it is just my imagination, but Clinton’s presidency started a culture in this country of getting away with things as the first priority in life.
Intelligence and cleverness and perspicacity, for Clinton, was measured by who he could fool, by not getting caught, and by avoiding consequences for having been caught.
Now we have a culture of that.
It is sickening that HC might actually be the next president.
The most hopeful political news I have heard recently (yesterday) was when a devoted Democrat friend of mine said (again) he and his wife will absolutely not under any circumstances vote for HC because of the utter corruption of these two people. He hopes Sanders runs as an independent so he can vote for him.
Yay! Two votes in NY state for Sanders instead of HC.
Whatever else you want to say about Romney, he has been faithful to his wife, an extraordinary thing, a very good thing, a wonderful human thing. I hope a Carly or a Cruz are the same way.
Amidst the mess life presents to everyone, treating another human being (personally not politically) with respect and honor and sacrifice is an extraordinary thing.
The Clintons treat others as garbage and life as a video game.
One thing I remember when the Clinton scandal broke is that the MSM, although I don’t remember calling it that, voiced the opinion that Clinton would have to resign within a week.
bumsrush:
They were going in part of the Nixon precedent. Think about that.
Bill and Hill faced down decency.
And when decency was so thoroughly defeated the lesson was taught and learned.
Lack of decency and humanity is the essence of the left and of islam because efficacy and success are above all. Winning for the goal is more important than the goal. So it is in fact really just about losers becoming winners.
Bill is a loser. Hillary is a loser. And they win when we all lose. They know that.
Kerr’s a law professor, not a standup comic. This is as funny as they get.
Kerr may have been remarking on the fact that men’s testosterone (sexual proclivities) seems to be a thread that runs through the lives of politicians.
Carly Fiorina made a somewhat similar observation when asked how women beset with hormones could handle being President. Her answer (paraphrasing), “Gee, can anyone think of any men whose hormones have caused them problems while in office?”
Are politicians supposed to be paragons of virtue? How is it that men of modest means get elected to the Senate or House and end up millionaire’s? Virtue? Hardly. Men of all walks of life stumble and fall over their lust, yet we believe that elected politicians will be immune to such weakness? It is like hoping there really is a tooth fairy.
The sexual peccadillo is wrong and should be scrupulously avoided by people who are in the limelight, as politicians are. But when they fail and are discovered, the cover up and lying only make the whole thing that much worse. Being disgraced as a sitting President should be a pretty horrific experience and certainly one that you should be ever humble about. Unfortunately, we have learned that it’s not. Not if you are a democrat. Not if you are Bill Clinton.
When someone wants to blackmail you, the only thing to do is to go to the authorities, come clean, and take whatever disgrace or punishment is coming. Admitting your sin, asking for forgiveness, and trying to atone for it is far better than paying blackmail and trying to live in the shadows. A fact that Denny Hastert is apparently about to learn.
IMO, slick willy (and JFK and FDR and perhaps others) opened themselves up as easy targets for blackmail, from domestic or forgein sources. That is an action deserving impeachment and conviction. Period!
“What Clinton did deserved impeachment and removal.” Tonawanda
It is a stain upon the nation’s honor that there was not overwhelming support to do so. It is impossible to imagine Washington (who set the Presidential standard by which all others are measured) behaving that way or even agreeing that Clinton’s behavior did not readily qualify for impeachment.
As for Hastert, what would have happened had he not tried to conceal his withdrawals? After all, they were not deposits (the basis for bank’s reportage & federal scrutiny) but instead withdrawals. Which begs the question, what business is it of anyone, including the Feds with what an individual does with their money? Since when is withdrawing one’s money from a bank, and then refusing to reveal one’s motivation or purpose… grounds for accusations of criminality?
When the FBI showed up at his door, what if he’d refused to speak with them and called his lawyer?
As a layman, the only charge that comes to mind with which they could then have leveled against him is, obstructing a federal investigation. Yet to cooperate would be to self-incriminate… and again, upon what rational basis can totally unsubstantiated ‘suspicions’ qualify as grounds for launching a federal investigation in the first place?
“Are politicians supposed to be paragons of virtue? How is it that men of modest means get elected to the Senate or House and end up millionaire’s? Virtue? Hardly. Men of all walks of life stumble and fall over their lust, yet we believe that elected politicians will be immune to such weakness? It is like hoping there really is a tooth fairy.” J.J.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. [and] Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” John Adams
No tooth fairy needed, J.J. Veted by democrat and MSM scrutiny, Mitt Romney has demonstrated the ability to control his ‘lusts’. I suspect he’s not alone. Hell, even Carter did so.
The problem isn’t the unavoidable temptations that power brings, the problem is a populace that deserves no better and thus elects a reflection of their own lack of a moral compass.
“I blame the voters” G6loq
From Dem to Rep, from public to private, it’s almost looking like if you haven’t done something terrible, awful, illegal, immoral… you don’t make it to the top. Honestly, I wonder how long, and deep, .gov and .corp have been digging into lives. It honestly does look like they are picking leadership from the cesspool, keeping good people out. Maybe that’s the mark they are looking for, maybe it’s a control mechanism. The pattern is emerging, painfully, plainly, at least as I see things. Add in movie stars, rock stars, ceo’s too? Yeah, might as well.
Only from the bottom is the top created, I guess. Maybe that is why looting and riots are being allowed. Kin, of another skin.
“One thing I remember when the Clinton scandal broke is that the MSM, although I don’t remember calling it that, voiced the opinion that Clinton would have to resign within a week.”
I don’t know about the MSM as a whole, but I do remember that Sam Donaldson was saying that a lot at the beginning. He was taking it as a given, pretty much. I was skeptical even at that point. I might have desired that outcome, but nothing in Washington happens that fast anymore. It might have done so in earlier, “simpler” times but I knew by 1998 (and with a person like Clinton as the subject) that it wasn’t going to be nearly that straightforward. And once it got into what the meaning of “is” is, and the press didn’t care about that sort of behavior, then you knew it was going to drag on forever. I wonder if poor Sam ever recovered from his naivete, no doubt inherited from an earlier era when at least a modicum of public integrity was expected from politicians. (Not that private integrity was necessarily elected.)
elected-> expected
Seeing what Hastert did, are we at all sure his time in office was not influenced by blackmail?
With the way many Republicans act, and Justice Roberts for that matter, I ask myself the same thing about them.
All politicians should be forced to wear body cameras.
Wouldn’t that be fun 🙂
With the way many Republicans act, and Justice Roberts for that matter, I ask myself the same thing about them.
Along the same time, you should be asking yourself what happened at WACO 1. And it wasn’t because of what you said before.
Meet the Press is worried that all this talk about sex scandals and molestation will keep moderate, pragmatic child molesters from wanting to run for political office
Politicians are victims too. A viscous cycle.
What Kerr did was a repeat of what The Daily Show did regularly: distort the truth to make a joke.
It is offensive for the same reason too: some cases represent serious issues, and distortions of the truth are dangerous, even for jokes, because the truth in these cases is especially important.
In the past, it was realized that some things were too important to joke about. The culture has become coarsened, and now that distinction is lost. Thanks, Jon Stewart!
Neo, you also fail to note the sheer, abysmal hypocrisy of him sexually harassing interns, after pushing for — and signing into law — additional punishments for this behavior.
Whether what he was doing was criminal or civil, I don’t know, don’t care. It was against the law, either way, and probably far more wrongly morally imputable than all the rest of the crap he’d done surrounding this case. No, it’s probably not directly impeachable. But if you could figure out a proper way to consistently define/employ it, yeah, It Would Be A Real Good Thing if it were.
… Particularly for politicians, who seem to absolutely adore “Rules For Thee, But Not For Me.”
And, at the heart of it, that’s really what this is all about, innit?
Y @ 7:15 PM: “Along the same time, you should be asking yourself what happened at WACO 1. And it wasn’t because of what you said before.”
Can you explain what you mean? I don’t remember what “I said” about “WACO 1” or when. I am not saying I didn’t, and am always happy to stand corrected, but I just don’t recall.
Is this blackmail related, I mean related to my wondering if the occasional seemingly bizarre self-defeating behavior of Republicans could be related to blackmail??
http://neoneocon.com/2015/05/18/lethal-biker-brawl/#comment-894359
It’s related to crazy conspiracy theories. Except most conspiracy theories are smokescreens by the Left and are made out by incompetents that can’t figure out what happens if their theory was true.
I mentioned Republicans being on the black mail list and under the influence, some odd years ago, albeit not necessarily here. That was partially due to Sarah Palin helping to uncover that extra 5th column in 2008. The details of Ruby Ridge and WACO 1, though, helped in other matters concerning the Left. It’s why I wasn’t surprised at the friendly park rangers getting out the rods on American patriots and veterans when ordered to do so by their God Emperor Hussein. Federal government enforcement agencies have long been under authority, enough to override individual conscience or exile those who refused to obey.
It’s not difficult to supersede other people’s thinking, since I started the race years ago. They have a very very late start. Which is why people, when they begin questioning the Status Quo propaganda, should look back in the past and also question their previous assumptions, which came from the media as well. They just didn’t notice at that time. Now though, they don’t have any excuse, they are beginning to notice, whether they like it or not. That’s why I brought up Waco 1, because of what you said there, Ton.
Y@ 11:32 – –
OK, that was me being a not very clever smart ass.
I think WACO I was a government massacre of innocent Americans. It has been years since I looked at the details but my memory regards it as one of the most brutal episodes of government oppression in our history.
And Clinton got away with his massive distortion of history, just as he got away with the massive distortion of flight 800.
I think in general people are not aware of how successfully they have been and are manipulated by the left.
It is too early to tell, but WACO II might turn out to be on the same level as WACO I. There is an ongoing totalitarian-type injustice going on there. Probably more than 100 totally innocent people are incarcerated STILL as part of the cover-up of wrongdoing.
The “biker gangs,” like the Branch Davidians, are so successfully demonized that nobody cares, even though it is obvious that normal, everyday “conservatives” might very well be next.
(And the “gangs” included Christian bikers, “mom and pop” bikers, and more completely innocent bikers who were there for a completely innocent political meeting).
To my mind, WACO II is by far the most important story going, but there is total silence even on non-left sites despite the huge and hugely disturbing, ongoing violation of our Constitution.
As I have expressed often, I have deep respect for neo and the posters here. There is no place like it.
On the occasion you cite, neo went with the “bikers are mean and scary” approach (if I remember correctly) whereas to me the whole story seemed to be elsewhere. I respectfully disagreed with her assessment of the story.
And it turns out to actually have been elsewhere as each fascinating day reveals. Elsewhere except in the news, or even on non-left sites. Just silence and the triumph yet again of government force and manipulation.
If even the smart and good people can jump on board the demonization train, it can go anywhere. Toot! Toot! Next stop at a station nearby with neo admirers on the platform.
Y: ok, I re-read the latter portion of the comments and I saw your last comment.
I was being sarcastic about the Branch Davidians. Sarcasm is not pretty and often not effective, as I demonstrated with mine.
One more thing vaguely along these lines.
I think we have to be very careful in falling for group against group propaganda.
In this regard, I fully understand and realize the phony racial animosity used by the left as a weapon to destroy this country. It is important to call it what is and to condemn it.
At the same time, I see people taking the racial bait and hardening their views into racial animosity. This serves the purposes of the left completely, and is one of the intended consequences.
Someone smarter than me and more eloquent can say what needs to be said about this, but it has to be somewhere along the lines that people have to be aware of being drawn into racial fights. Tell the truth, but be careful that YOU (plural) are not serving as a leftist stooge on matters of race.
it has to be somewhere along the lines that people have to be aware of being drawn into racial fights.
39 of the 70 burned to death in the Waco tank assault were minorities, black (27), hispanic (6), and asian (6).
Waco represented the single greatest federally orchestrated one-day slaughter of racial minorities on American soil since Wounded Knee in 1890.
Zieg!
Sarcasm is not pretty and often not effective, as I demonstrated with mine.
You’ve made a lot of those comments like that. Such as for the police. But this wasn’t about current events, Ferguson, Gray, Baltimore, etc.
And since you haven’t clarified your position, this means your textual analysis writing of sarcasm is now morphing into being ambiguous. People are ambiguous when they don’t want to clearly state their position, for some reason.
For example, while you call your position one of sarcasm, you still haven’t clarified what you actually think happened during WACO 1 or Waco 2. Are you worried about the police or your fellow neighbors SWATing you?
Okay, reading the thread in reverse, I didn’t read all your comments. Now I have. So you have clarified your position.
What I said about being ambiguous only applies to the past threads, not to the current one; that would be the correction I would make.
To most of your conclusions, I have come to the same ones concerning Waco 1, although Waco 2 was unclear at the time. Later on, I was told interesting things like who shot first, who got shot first, and the placement of the shots as well as the bodies. Much like the “crazy terrorist executed in DC ramming through security check points and barricades”, the official story was 180 in reverse of several stated claims.
If even the smart and good people can jump on board the demonization train, it can go anywhere.
If you disagree with the OP post or an implication from it, state it out right, unless there’s a reason to do it otherwise. Personally, I don’t think anyone is immune to Leftist propaganda. I merely have built up better defenses over the years compared to some other people.
The power of the Left is not to be underestimated. No matter what a person’s politics are, they could easily be deceived and manipulated. After all, people here kept telling me that I was weird or wrong for supporting Sarah Palin after the two “interviews” proved she was a flake. The only thing it proved was how retarded weak the so called Republican voter is, plus the Libertarian Leftist hacks, and the Republican staff bought and paid for by Soros puppets.
(And the “gangs” included Christian bikers, “mom and pop” bikers, and more completely innocent bikers who were there for a completely innocent political meeting).
Most of the Left’s mind control power is invested in the English language. So the moment someone accepts the Left’s language, and calls them a “biker gang” in their head, they now think of them as criminals that were “brawling” and thus needed the police to terminate them for the public good.
That is, rather than natural human logical conclusions, the logical conclusion intentionally planned out and set forth by Leftist manipulators. One requires a firewall filter before one can begin seeing this entity.
I’ve seen it used before. But the Left’s propaganda methods are far less effective on me, because I don’t agree to their conclusions and I don’t agree to use their Authority’s decision to word and classify things their way. In point of fact, I don’t even think in the English language, I run a second operating system in a foreign language that contains my real thinking. The English is a dummy box designed to trap viruses and root hacks.
Y: Although it was somewhat personally uncomfortable for me to read in one or two aspects, much of what you say is exactly what I think.
Just to choose one example, I too love Sarah Palin, I think anyone who listens to her and reads her objectively understands she is a highly intelligent person and (far more rare) an actual natural born leader.
Yet even people who like her and who agree with her were successfully propagandized into feeling embarrassed about her. To prove it, just imagine if she were the identical Sarah, but a leftist. She would be president in a heart beat, lionized as the Hillary we have always really wanted, a Strong Woman for the Ages putting Elizabeth (the first, not the Indian) to shame.
And the daily propaganda would be the usual blather about sexism if you disagree with her. But nobody, not even those who disagreed with bizarro Sarah’s leftist views, would find her embarrassing. The non-left in particular would bemoan the lack of a funny, natural, sharp, fascinating self-confident woman on their side.
Lol … to me, McCain did not want to win, and found more glory in losing. He was a narcissistic fraud, he just wanted his footnote in the history books. He is one of those Republicans my intuition and common sense says has been severely compromised by blackmail. He is a puppet.
He has no affinity for Palin and it is remarkable he chose her, regardless of the fact she was a woman. I forget if there was another woman available (Libby Dole?). At any rate, McCain’s sole achievement was to effect the destruction of Sarah Palin during the course of two months. He exposed her, and the left was ready for her, and now “conservatives” are embarrassed of her, never to be undone.
When I was a teenager in the 60’s William Buckley was my hero, which he remained for life. I enrolled as a Conservative the day of my 18th birthday, and remain an enrolled Conservative to this day.
I went to a high school very much influenced by the left and continuous leftist influence (yes, even in the 60’s), I went to a college which was the essence of leftist influence. I have spent my life in three cities overwhelmingly dominated by the Democrat party and heavily leftist. I have seen the left up close and personal.
But unlike many other folks, I saw it from the perspective of someone whose hero was Buckley, who read every issue of National Review, who read Hayek, Bastiat, Friedman, Sumner, and whatever else I could get my hands on.
The left has not changed. They have merely gotten vastly more powerful, and far more sophisticated. Think of the Weatherman Ayers evolving into the Ayers who got a president elected using fraud and subterfuge most people do not and cannot recognize let alone understand.
Although I am an enrolled Conservative I do not call myself conservative anymore. I do not know what conservative means anymore. National Review just published an editorial supporting gay marriage. Whatever the merits, that is not conservative.
What I do know is resistance to the left and their allies, islam.
Resistance seems to me the most effective concept when people otherwise disagree so much on so much, whether it has to do with God or government, or personal lifestyle.
I am not a professional writer and I do not write a blog. My “writing” philosophy is that I have reached an age where I say what I want, the way I want to say it. If I don’t achieve perfect understanding so be it. Part of my “style” is to skip past pointless words (as I regard them) such as, “I disagree with you”. A person (for example) can decide for himself whether there is disagreement and how much.
neo is the ideal of blog writers and writers in general when it comes to objectivity, tone, intelligence, fairness, knowledge and insight. In style, Robert Spencer is the only similar writer out there. There are many other wonderful writers (Steyn, Wlliamson, Hanson, many more) but they have a polemical tone (which I love) neo does not have (which I also love).
Posting comments on a blog is not writing for the public in the same way neo writes for the public.
With respect to the police, it is a far more complicated issue than most people of any opinion think. It is hard for people to believe or to see the extent of leftist influence and the corruption it has bred. But just to point to one aspect of concern, demonization has become a chief component of modern law enforcement, and its corrupt attitude has affected individual officers and departments, who are highly conversant with the means and methods of propaganda.
So you have even highly intelligent, perceptive “conservatives” for whom all you need to know is that WACO II is
about “biker gangs”.
He has no affinity for Palin and it is remarkable he chose her, regardless of the fact she was a woman.
McCain’s wife chose her, so it wasn’t McCain’s own decisions nor was it the Republican staffers. The staffers are probably much more deeply infiltrated, as they serve as the gateways for the politicians. People like Noonan have a great deal of influence, when people think she is “objective” or “reasonable”.
The police have formed a separate sub culture where it is them against everybody else. Which means the lawyers, the gangs, and the civilians tend to get all grouped together. Since criminals come out of civilians, the police have formed their own little tribal identity, similar to the Muslims or Leftists, with the expected detriments, corruption, and consequences of tribal loyalty overriding national patriotism.