benhocking's Journal: Now vs. then

With DeLay's indictment, we now have the following three major Republican's with either criminal indictments or with indictments likely: DeLay, Frist, and Rove. If there are some others you believe belong on this list let me know. Anyways, all of this talk about these indictments being a product of "blatant political partisanship", I am reminded of the vast right-wing conspiracy claims that were bandied about (at least by Hillary) back when Clinton was on the hot seat.

So, here's a multiple choice poll. These indictments differ from Clinton's because:

• They don't directly involve Bush. Bush is whiter than snow!
• These charges are more serious than perjury involving fellatio.
• These charges are less serious.
• This really is a vast left-wing conspiracy.
• There really was a vast right-wing conspiracy.
• Trick question! There's no difference!
• Other (please specify)

Of course.

[davburns]

• Yes, conspiracy to violate election laws is worse than purjury. Of course, that hasn't been proven (yet?), so we'll wait and see.
• Yes, there is a conspiracy among left-wingers. (But it's not illegal to be leftist, so this is not a criminal conspiracy).
• Yes, there is a conspiracy among right-wingers. (But it's not illegal to be rightist, so this is not a criminal conspiracy).

Proven vs. unproven

[benhocking]

Yes, conspiracy to violate election laws is worse than purjury. Of course, that hasn't been proven (yet?), so we'll wait and see.

This will probably end up being another parallel - no conviction. As I recall, Clinton was never convicted of perjury, only impeached (i.e., officially accused). Of course, we all know he was guilty - he admitted to as much (of course, Karl Rove has also admitted to telling a reporter that Matt Wilson's wife (AKA Valerie Plame) worked for the CIA). OTOH, the trial in the senat

No conspiracy

[Blitzenn]

It's not a conspiracy, it's a valid charge that needs to be addressed. Did he actually launder money by asking his constituents to contribute to his PAC (a PAC that he himself established) rather than the party itself so he could avoid the contribution requirements and limitations? I think he clearly tried to leverage what he sees as a loophole at the least. From his televised response(s), I get a distinct impression that he, at the least, believes it is legal to do just that. I think that leveraging loo