Cleaning up the government begins
A jury Tuesday convicted a former Bush administration official of four counts of lying and obstructing justice in the first trial to be held in connection with the influence-peddling scandal of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
On the fifth day of deliberations, the jury found David Safavian a former chief of staff at the General Services Administration guilty of four of five counts of lying and obstructing justice.
The press has essentially ignored this story, just too many tough questions to ask so they’d prefer if it just went away.
You know why he’s a “former” official?
Because he was arrested.
A former Bush administration official convicted…
There’s a “culture of corruption,” if ever I saw one!
Heh.
Bush potentially pardoning Libby
Why is he guilty of anything yet?
“The press has essentially ignored this story, just too many tough questions to ask so they d prefer if it just went away.”
Other than appearing front page of foxnews.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, cbsnews.com, etc. it has been swept under the table, thank you Mr. Rove.
The GOP insiders must think he’ll be convicted if they’re discussing pardons.
Talkingpoints has a thing up about Bush potentially pardoning Libby. Another black mark in his future encyclopedia entry, at least.
Dugger, either you have the special “liberal bias” edition of Google or you have a rather loose definition of “roughly half.”
I counted 18 of the first 50 (including entries from the notoriously liberal Fox News and Washington Times). Of the remainder, roughly half were “Safavian Denies…” or “Safavian Explains…” stories in which the convict was permitted to declare his own innocence.
And dammit, isn’t that why we have Gitmo and Alberto Gonzales in the first place: to make sure that people convicted of crimes aren’t allowed to plead their case?
like “Who the hell is David Safavian?!?”
“The press has essentially ignored this story, just too many tough questions to ask so they d prefer if it just went away. ”
Horse Hockey!
I Googled ’safavian’. Out of first fifty listings I found roughly half of them from major news outlets – before June 06. CBS several times, Wa Po, Wa Times, NY Times, Bloomberg, MSNBC, Forbes, Hill NEws, USA Today, etc. ANd almost all of the rest were from bloggers and government publications detailing the story – prior to June.
Dugger
Wait a second ollie!
This guy was just convicted of lying about talking to someone right?
I thought that lying to a court was ok with the leftists? I mean, you are always saying it didn’t matter when Bill Clinton did it.
I am missing the consistency here…..
Ok, now we “know” my position….
The amazing silence is in the leftists inconsistency on THEIR position……
Pedro’s position on ANY subject:
“But Bill Clinton did it too!!”
Quaker, We may disagree on ‘major news outlet’, but my count was admittedly very quick. I counted SF Gate, Boston.com, Forbes, Yahoo, Hill News, Fed Times among others as major. Bloggers as not. Hey, feel free to disagree. This level of coverage and the fact the Wa Times etc covered Safavians troubles does not diminish from the fact that major news outlets were all over the essential negative-for-Republicans story – contrary to OWs suggestion.
I hope he didn’t hide his $ in his freezer like some other ELECTED official. I can’t recall what party he belongs to, the press coverage of that incident has been lacking.
not to mention that it’s impossible to determine pedro’s own position on the subject.
Again, a typical right winger like Pedro proudly displays his reptilian brain by showing he can’t go 5 minutes in a debate without blurting out something about Bill Clinton.
Inconsistency? in not believing a massive effort to lodge the president in a perjury trap is a good way to use up American resources? That inconsistency you fucking moron?
Safavian is lying about taking money to waste taxpayer dollars. Clinton lied about fucking an intern. You fucking can’t see the difference? Are you simple? Did you get dropped down a well? Both are wrong, sure. But that’s like saying “Some douchebag stabbed Dr Pedro’s eye out with a fork, and another guy patted Dr. Pedro on the head. THEY’RE IDENTICAL MISDEEDS.
You know this too. You’re just turd-stirring. You don’t really care about Duke or Safavian or Abramhoff or any of that because you’re morally empty. You’re nothing but a yelping hyena, dumbly repeating shit over and over again.
Personally, I think you’re stupid AND evil, and should be kept in a cage and have vegetables thrown at you by schoolchildren.
Yea Bushwacked…it is good to be king. It is also good that republicans are so good hearted as to give clenis a pass. However, the judge in Arkanasas that disbarred him was not as kind-hearted eh?
First of all, David Safavian was not just accused of lying but of lying and obstructing justice.
Definition: obstruction of justice
The criminal offense, under common law and according to the statutes of many jurisdictions, of obstructing the administration and due process of law.
Obstruction of justice is a little more than just lying or purjury. Clinton was accused of purjury and obstruction of justice but he was convicted of nothing, nada. He was officially aquitted by the Senate. That means for those who keep saying the opposite you are officially wrong, no matter how many times you wish to repeat it.
The press has essentially ignored this story, just too many tough questions to ask so they d prefer if it just went away.
Funny, I didn’t see left-blogs swarming when George “Bank of Kos” Soros’ insider trading conviction was upheld by a French court last week, either.
I guess there were just too many tough questions to ask, eh? Or maybe its that whole “biting the hand that feeds you” thing. But of course taking dirty money from a crooked financier is perfectly okay if you’re using it to expose the real “culture of corruption.”
Pedro, BW,
What the Arkansas judge said.
‘In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process in Jones s sexual harassment lawsuit. She specifically cited Clinton s assertions that he was never alone with Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual relationship with the former White House intern.
Wright, who personally presided over Clinton s January 1998 deposition in the Jones case, acknowledged that no court had ever taken such action against a president but said it was important to act to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president s misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the president of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system, she said.
Dugger
I hope he didn t hide his $ in his freezer like some other ELECTED official. I can t recall what party he belongs to, the press coverage of that incident has been lacking.
You obviously don’t ever watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox or any of the major news networks then because was shown ad infinitum for almost two weeks.
Want to start making comparisions as to how may politicians in each of the two major parties have been accused of crimes regarding Abramoff?
I didn’t think so.
Thanks Dug.
Sort of reminds me of that great line in “Stripes”:
“CONVICTED of a felony? No Sarge, never actually convicted….” LOL
Civil contempt of court, what a heinous crime! Unfortunately he wasn’t convicted of anything, regardless of how you want to phrase it. He was found in contempt of court by a judge (not a jury) for “false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process .
Also note that in her ruling the terms purjury or lying were not used.
To equate whatever crimes you “think” Clinton commited in this case with being convicted in court by a jury of purjury and obstructing justice is rather weak to put it mildly. But since I want to return the favor it’s OK by me if that makes you feel better. It’s obviously cheaper than psychotherapy, right.
‘wacked
your reality testing needs some work (so does your spelling PERJURY)
Clenis remains the only disbarred president in the history of the united states….and if you think the POTUS lying before a court is just a little minor pecadillo…well, thankfully you and your types aren’t running the country. But please….spread it around…I think it will help the republican chances for re-election!
Sorry my spelling so offended you but I didn’t use spell check. I ll try to do better next time. The fact remains is that there is a BIG difference between this, which was a criminal case, and a contempt ruling in a civil matter. No matter how much testosterone you try to inject into it.
And there is a really big difference when the “contempt ruling in a civil matter” is a sitting President, and the chief of staff of a purely bureacratic , non-policymaking government organization, n’est, pas?
The President is the titular chief law enforcement officer for the United States, and if HE can’t follow simple instructions to “tell the truth”, and in fact is chastised by a federal judge for it, well, how can we expect the hoi polloi to?
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
quis custodiet ipsos custodes – who will guard the guardians
Impressive Latin phrase, no matter how irrelevant.
The discussion which started as the relevance your equating contempt of court in a civil case, not exactly a felony, to conviction of perjury and obstruction in a criminal case which obviously is. Now it’s down to
The President should know better and he is now a bad influence on the the common people.
Whatever?????????????
I’m still trying to find out we went from one conviction to a “culture of corruption.”
And, I’d love to hear someone define “culture of corruption” without mentioning the name of a politician or political party.
good job ‘wacked, I wasn’t sure you knew how to use google.
And the question remains just as you stated. You just don’t understand the difference between a President of the United States lying under oath, and minor bureacrat doing it. And that is the problem with the leftist democrats in this country in general.
Culture of corruption basically just means a political machine. We all know famous examples in city and state politics, of course, but the big money starts flowing when you have one party control of government and — most importantly — no meaningful oversight of that party.
BTW, I don’t think Bush lost Iraq.
It’s right here
Thank you, TomY. So what you’re saying is that the Republicans are no worse, or better than the Republicans.
That’s what I figured.
It sounds so much better coming from you.
Now, if only Oliver… Nah!
I don’t think the Republican culture of corruption is unique, if that’s what you mean. But since we’re apparently back to “mentioning the name of a politician or political party,” I do think the conservative ideology of business-friendly deregulation has dovetailed with the GOP’s fundraising efforts to make a perfect storm of corrupt activity. And the only explanation for people like you who deny, defend it, or try to find an equivalent on the other side of the aisle (which is out of power, if you haven’t heard) is ignorance or bad faith.
And the only explanation for people like you … is ignorance or bad faith. [emphasis added]
How about:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
And the republicans have been in complete control for how long? A more truthful statement ne’er has been spoken on this blog.