FRIENDLY FIRE - I was wrong in my article of June 14th when I defended Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder has to go. He's wasting his time, Obama's political capital and, most importantly, my money. [LINK]
Roger Clemens walked today, after a five year investigation and a multimillion dollar trial for lying to congress about steroid use. He was found not guilty on all counts. This comes close on the heels of the combined acquittal and hung jury of another heel, John Edwards. These are but two high profile examples of a radical misallocation of time and money. Now we have a similar farce to look forward to: Lance Armstrong.
Maybe it's professional jealousy and the politicians want to keep all the lying for themselves. But consider this: If politicians were held legally accountable for their promises--personal and campaign--they'd all be behind bars. We'd have more politicians to put through our courts than undocumented aliens that some claim to want to deport. Yes, that's an exaggeration but only slightly.
But let's not be hardnosed about this and not put them on trial for campaign promises, only real perjury, testimony given under oath that the subject knows to be false. We'd be locking up elected officials, administration office holders, cabinet members and nearly everyone else who comes before the congress to testify or be confirmed.
This leads us to the ultimate irony. We could throw all these scoundrels in prison and there would be no appeal (appealing as that prospect might be) because most of the Supreme Court would be unavailable to hear the appeal. They too would be behind bars--or, more likely, in a swank Club Fed facility.
Hark back to any Supreme Court confirmation hearings over the past twenty years. Not a single potential justice answered with anything resembling the whole truth, the plain truth and nothing but the truth.
These hearings have been inartful kabuki rituals where some of the brightest legal minds in the nation (plus Clarence Thomas) deny ever having thought about the questions and issues that everyone has thought about.
"Have you formed an opinion on Roe versus Wade?" "No, what is that? I'm really not up on it." Right. Very plausible.
Then, nominee Thomas swore he would not have a "crimped" view of the right to privacy. He promised an "expansive" approach.
Mr. Chief Justice Roberts, when a nominee, promised, under oath, to model judicial non-activism. He testified that in his view the Supreme Court justices should not make law, but be like umpires and only "call the balls and strikes."
To be fair, (which I hate to be in this case, while making my case) liberal nominees also dance, squirm and torture both logic and language trying to evade a wholly truthful response. They claim never to prejudge or hold an opinion on anything likely to come before the court. Any questions on Roe v Wade, Gun Rights or Immigration would be "highly speculative, improper and engaging in hypotheticals"--which, of course, neither a good lawyer nor judge would ever do.
The members of the highest court in the land are clear perjurers and our Justice Department is spending our money chasing John Edwards, Roger Clemens and Lance Armstrong. We prosecute perjury for sex and drugs while lying about real issues, life and death controversies, reasons for war, warrantless wiretaps and death lists are tolerated?
Sorry, these are rhetorical questions to which the answers are all, Yes.
Mr. Holder, please get a sense of proportion, of priorities or please step aside.
(Jonathan Dobrer is an op-ed contributor to the Daily News and Friendly Fire and is a syndicated columnist. This column was posted first at Friendly Fire. More on Jonathan and his books at www.Dobrer.com) –cw
Tags: Jonathan Dobrer, Eric Holder, Attorney General, Congress, perjury, Supreme Court, Justice Thomas, Justice Roberts
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 50
Pub: June 22, 2012
