Minty – If you went to court with 20 eye-witnesses, I think you’d have a pretty strong case – particularly if the other side had no evidence at all.
We now know that there was no agency review of the vandalism claims. So, what’s the counter-evidence that the vandalism didn’t occur?
the one asserting that vandalism occurred would have not only the burden of proof, but the opportunity to meet that burden. Remember the ‘vandalism’ claims weren’t made until the Clinton team were gone and the locks changed. They’d be unable to ‘prove’ that it didn’t occur.
I agree that the Bush people had a better opportunity to take photos of the damage. But, both sides have had the same opportunity to interview witnesses to the vandalism. I would guess that the witnesses probably included long-term federal employees as well as Bush partisans.
BTW if you don’t believe all these witnesses, do you think they organized an impromptu conspiracy to promulgate a false story?
Minty – I assume your shot at Ari F.'s veracity was just a joke. (Like, "You can’t spell liberal without the letters L, I, & E.) Or, do you seriously believe he’s integrity-challenged? If so, what’s your basis?
wring nailed it on the burden of proof. And personally, I would love to cross-examine those 20 supposed witnesses: “So you saw all this apparent vandalism, which caused thousands and thousands of dollars worth of damage and interrupted important government work, is that correct? But you can’t show us any written reports on this damage? And you don’t have any photographs of vandalism? And all the single picture you have produced shows is a seriously untidy office?” Oh my, that would be a fun trial.
Besides, where are all these supposed witnesses, anyway? All I’ve seen is Ari Fleischer saying that we should trust him that bad stuff happened, but that it would be undiginified to say what kind of bad stuff happened or provide any evidence for it. Everything else is just second-hand quotes from anonymous sources, none of whom have managed to adequately support their claims.
Yes, it was largely a joke. But considering Fleischer’s job is spin control, I think it would always be wise to take anything he says with a grain of salt, just as I did back when Joe Lockhart was babbling about the Bill and Monica soap opera.
*Originally posted by minty green *
And personally, I would love to cross-examine those 20 supposed witnesses…
Minty, I’m sure you’re an outstanding lawyer. Still, could you really cross-examine well enough to win a case with zero witnesses on your side and 20 on the other side?
**…Oh my, that would be a fun trial.
**
It would be fun for one side or the other…
**Besides, where are all these supposed witnesses, anyway? All I’ve seen is Ari Fleischer saying that we should trust him that bad stuff happened, but that it would be undiginified to say what kind of bad stuff happened or provide any evidence for it. **
I saw Brit Hume say that Fox News had interviewed a number of these witnesses, and they confirmed the degree of damage at the White House complex. However, Fox did retract the story about theft and vandalism on the President’s plane. **
[/QUOTE]
With a jury composed of residents of the District of Columbia, and the plaintiffs a bunch of Republicans who want the jurors to take them at their word? Oh yeah, I could win that case. 
OK, point by point:
Given the White House’s failure to produce any such in response to the GAO’s orders, what basis is there for believing they exist? Just why do you believe Fleischer under these circumstances? And why do you think he’d release a photo that seems to show the opposite?
Name even one. Even Faux News can’t produce a real person to claim that for the record, just Brit Hume’s nightly gossip.
Nice attempt at backtracking, there. Not particularly wise in a forum where every word you say is available with a click of the scroll bar, though.
“Dream on”, you say? Just how is the vandalism “story” differentiable from a fantasy, if not another lie? On what facts are you basing your certainty that this one is real?
*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
And why do you think he’d release a photo that seems to show the opposite?
Good quesion. Does anyone know whether the photo on Drudge was released by AF, or did Matt have some other source for it?
**Elvis, maybe Hume was lying and AF was lying and the witnesses were lying. But, there’s nobody on the other side saying that the vandalism didn’t happen. In my book, some evidence trumps no evidence.
Nice attempt at backtracking, there. [my admission of personal vandalism, which young and drunk.]
Not backtracking. Just trying to follow W’s example and “change the tone” of this thread.
On what facts are you basing your certainty that this one is real?
I have some facts, but of course, I can’t be certain.
Elvis, on what facts are you basing your certainty that this one is faux?
well, let’s set aside a couple hundred years of American jurisprudence system that says “innocent until proven guilty” and assume that ‘no denial = admission’, but, in fact, you’re incorrect that there was no denial.
In the same way that Fleischer was “changing the tone” in Washington with his casual insinuations? Please.
You do, huh? Then stand and deliver, even if you’re “not certain”. But if it’s only Free Republic threads and gossip from the Bush’s Cousin News Network, I’m going to be disappointed. Not surprised, but disappointed anyway.
The fact of absence of evidence found when the insinuators have been pressed for it, even investigated, combined with the fact of years of experience with other casual GOP/conservative “allegations” about Clinton’s and his staff’s conduct that similarly were found to have no basis in fact. As Ann Landers likes to say, “Wake up and smell the coffee, Buttercup.”
Good point. I remember when Rush Limbaugh used to allege that President Clinton was having affairs and the American Spectator wrote a crazy article about hanky-panky in Arkansas involving someone named “Paula.” Not to mention the Matt Drudge’s lie about some blue dress with DNA evidence. Anybody who paid atention to that stuff must have been a right wing kook!
Seriously, the mainstream media ought to be mighty red-faced, letting Matt Drudge all by himself scoop them on so many of these scandals. And, in Pardongate, the National Enquirer did better investigative reporting than the NY Times, the Washington Post and all the major TV stations put together.
If a monkey flings enough crap, some of it’s going to hit the tourists. And if Matt Drudge reprints every rumor that comes his way, a handful of them are bound to be more or less accurate.
It doesn’t change the fact that the mainstream media was so lax in their investigating of Clinton that they have managed to elevate the National Enquirer to the level of mainstream journalism. Last week I saw Al Hunt on CNN lamenting the fact that the Enquirer was doing better investigative work than the mainstream press.
Anyway, back to the OP - Even if there were inaccurate reports, let’s make sure we lay the blame where it belongs. George Bush went on record immediately after this stuff came public, and claimed that he didn’t know anything about it, and didn’t care. He basically said, “Boys will be boys”, and pleaded with everyone to let the issue drop.
Later, when the anonymous reports started surfacing about Clinton stealing from Air Force 1, Bush himself came out and said that the reports were wrong, and that he personally had seen that everything on AF1 was in place.
So let’s not tar and feather with too wide a brush here. Going from an offhand comment by Ari Fleischer to a “GOP/Bush Administration attack” is more than a bit of a stretch.
I’m guessing that whatever pranks there were actually made Bush laugh, since he strikes me as a frat-boy party kinda guy. And frankly, I had a pretty good chuckle over a couple of the reported pranks myself. And even if some of the staffers went way overboard, so what? These things happen. Clinton had a young staff, they were full of hubris, they were angry at the results of an election, and they blew off some steam. C’est la vie. Hell, I can remember a few stunts in college that we pulled off that probably went over the top, but they sure seemed like good fun at the time.
So put me firmly in the, “Maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t, but I wouldn’t blame them if it did, and anyway life is too short to worry about a few 'W’s on keyboards” camp.
Sigh … December, apparently your only news sources are the same ones Milossarian uses, giving you both similar cases of amnesia. In this case, you seem unable to remember Whitewater and the endless list of -gates, but the previous page of this very thread.
Your failure to answer any of the other questions asked of you is in itself an answer, of course.
Don’t forget to add the “ditto” on your future posts, btw.
Sam, are you really saying Clinton was underinvestigated of all things? Really???
That is not necessarily the only conclusion one can reach if an investigation fails to find evidence of the core allegation, ya know. William of Ockham could explain that in some detail.
Now, as to what seems to be your main point: This is more than just a “boys will be boys, let’s move on” situation. The pranks, even if true, really don’t mean anything, agreed. This isn’t about pranks, or even Clinton, but about hypocrisy and ethics and responsibility and adult conduct - not by the Democrats you weirdly hate, but by Republicans. Don’t forget all the sermons about “restoring honor and dignity and integrity” et cetera ad nauseam that people such as yourself continue to spew, in the face of evidence that they themselves aren’t necessarily even as moral etc. as those they condemn.
This is about the conduct of the current leadership in Washington, and although it’s just another example, these things are continuing to add up.
Now, has anyone got some good synonyms for “hypocritical”? I am getting so tired of typing that I’m about to make a macro.
*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
Sam, are you really saying Clinton was underinvestigated of all things? Really???
Actually, it looks like Sam was quoting liberal pundit Al Hunt as having made the statement.
::tap tap tap:: is this thing on? I know I posted something, 'cause I can still see it. I know december has been back here since then, since he replied to Elvis…
hmmm. Could be that he has no reponse?
To sum up: december says:
and
I reply
and, complete with site (above)
So. On the one hand we have accusations, and no proof submitted, no reports filed, and on the other, the accusations made after the accused had access, and a denial that there was anything of note.
Patience, wring. That huge avalanche of evidence is going to be unleashed any minute now. Guess there aren’t any 1 hour photo places in D.C. Yes siree, Bob, any minute now.
OfficeMax has confirmed that the “$2,000” of taxpayer money spent to replace the “W” keys and the ravaged computer keyboards were donated by OfficeMax! And that picture? Turns out it is a hallway in the building where stuff is stashed when they can’t find another place for it!
(Wait. Over there in the corner. Isn’t that a blue dress?)
That flood of documentary and photographic evidence seems to be in abeyance. No sign yet of the crushing inundation of same.
[pious, self-righteous Republican style pomposity]
The American People have been lied to! Special Prosecutor! Special Prosecutor! This isn’t about sex! It’s about integrity, and the violation of trust! I am sure such stalwarts of public order and decency such as Milo, December, and Scylla will rush to support this movement.
[/pious, self-righteous Republican style pomposity]
I await thier response “with the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces”. (Mark Twain)