Recently in CLINTON POOBAH

Category

More accurately, the Clintons continue to clog their own credibility, but they also seem to think that by hammering on through incredible gaffs, their credibility will somehow improve; they deploy the "hiding in plain sight" methodology whatever their foolery is, may be and has been.

However, calling "it" -- the Clinton politics and methods -- "foolery" is just too lenient, too kind, too fluffy to accurately describe their deeds.

Sandy Berger was rolled into Hillary and Bill's 2008 Presidential campaign a while ago but the news only gained mainstream foothold yesterday. A commentor mentioned an earlier article about Berger in relationship to the Clinton campaign on POLITICO a few days ago and the national news picked it up from there, that Sandy Berger was named by Hillary Clinton as "special advisor" to her campaign. Today Hillary (and Bill) maintain they "have a lot of friends" and "a lot of people advise" the/their campaign/s. Lalalalalala.

Sandy Berger, in statements made in 2003 and in sworn testimony in 2004 before the 911 Commission, said that he "did not have anything in (his) pants" when questioned about classified documents he cryptically removed from the National Archive -- specifically although a copy, a copy bearing original notes by former President Bill Clinton that directly involves his questionable interactions as to our U.S. national security.

Berger's attorney later declared that Berger DID have documents in his pants, among other areas on or attached to his body, but, oh, lalalalala. The Justice Department let Berger slip by without jail time but jail time he deserved, as does whoever motivated Berger to make these thefts (my guess is the Clintons - one, both). But, lalalalala, Bill Clinton responded in that staccato false laugh he uses (as does Hillary deploy her cackle), saying that Berger was known to be "disorganized" and laughed about what Clinton referred to as Berger's goofiness, lalalalalala, no harm there, he's an entertaining boob, as Liberals try to minimize his behaviors, lalalalalala.

But if you doubt my word for it, read the facts, read the news:

SANDY BERGER: WHAT DID HE TAKE AND WHY DID HE TAKE IT?

SANDY BERGER and THE CLINTON COVER-UP - WHY IT MATTERS (via noliberalspin.townhall.com):

You really have to wonder why Sandy Burgular gave up his law license so quickly to avoid an investigation into his nefarious activities in the National Archives! What WAS that masked man up to? Why did Bubba erupt like Vesuvius when Chris Wallace merely touched on the subject? Like a lion with a thorn in his paw, Bubba roared that Chris and the right-wing were out to get him, etc...

EXCERPT:

On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation's most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.

"Ordinarily, anyone who has spent the time, effort, and money needed to master one of the 'learned professions' fights with the utmost determination to keep his license. That is not merely a ticket to practice your chosen profession - it is also a badge of honor and accomplishment. Ask any doctor or lawyer, any architect or CPA, any professional at all, what it means to give that up.

That Berger didn't fight speaks volumes.

TIMELINE of Sandy Burgular's activities.

1. When caught, he first blamed Archives employees for misplacing the documents.

2. Then he admitted having taken them inadvertently (this is the point at which he cut the plea deal).

3. Finally, Sandy Burgular acknowledged that he intentionally removed and destroyed documents BUT ONLY after the investigation began to reveal that Sandy Burgular had removed and destroyed them.

SANDY BERGER - SERIOUSLY, SANDY BERGER?

SANDY BERGER'S HEAVY LIFTING

The Clintons change clothes and hope you won't notice their pants:
Sandy Berger's an official advisor and then he's merely a friend and an advisor when he's not merely a friend advising another one, depending, of course, on what the meaning of the word, "is" is.

President Bush commuted "Scooter" Libby's criminal sentence -- Bush did not grant a presidential pardon to Libby, he commuted his sentence ("Grant of Executive Clemency"). Bush did not pardon or set aside Libby's jury verdict nor dismiss the sentencing in full (which would be a presidential pardon):

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a written statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison."

Bush commuted part of the sentencing, specifically, the jail sentencing. Libby's verdict remains in place as does the greater part of his sentence in relationship to that verdice -- a substantial fine, he's can't vote, can't practice law and a number of other negative consequences.

A presidential pardon, on the other hand, excuses (sets aside, dismisses) a jury verdict, rendering a convicted individual free and clear of the conviction along with, of course, any and all sentencing applied to that individual by the Court. In Libby's case, many of us (I am one of them) think a pardon for Libby might be reasonable.

...Earlier Tuesday, chief Bush spokesman Tony Snow had declined to rule out the possibility of an eventual pardon and called the president satisfied with his decision to commute Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence.

"He thought any jail time was excessive. He did not see fit to have Scooter Libby taken to jail," Snow said.

The spokesman told reporters at a White House briefing that even with Bush's decision, Libby remains with a felony conviction on his record, two years' probation, a $250,000 fine and probable loss of his legal career. "So this is hardly a slap on the wrist," Snow said. "It is a very severe penalty..."

The Democrats, however, persist in blunt-needle fashion in refusing to accept the facts that the circumstances upon which Libby was charged omitted the base-level crime involved and that was Joe Wilson's compromise of his wife's employment circumstances at the outset, and as that was the primary shaping issue upon which Wilson and other Democrats continue to splurge. Libby's later reference to that knowledge appears to have been blundering, at best -- hardly the original intelligence compromise -- and it's questionable in many of our minds whether there was ever any intent by Libby to mislead; it appears mostly to have been a frenetic error of speech if he even "leaked" any classified information at all (also reasonably questionable that he did).

As to the Executive privilege of presidential pardon, however, Bill Clinton used the presidential pardon excessively while he was in office, with a noticable proclivity by Clinton for granting Pardons to persons that financially supported the Clinton presidency who had been convicted of financial crimes, including those convicted of arms smuggling and banking fraud.

And yet to hear the screed from Democrats that began yesterday about the Libby commuted sentence by President Bush, if believed as to the Democrats' emotional outbursts and academic variations, All Reason Is Lost!.

Bill Clinton, while President of the United States, granted presidential pardons like peanuts (see "Pardons Granted by President Clinton" and try to count the grains of sulphur amidst the extensive list).

The most notorious pardon by Clinton was as to Marc Rich, granted by Clinton -- so he said -- as he was "walking out the door" of the White House in his last days remaining there, and until he wrote this elaborate workaround published by The New York Times, Clinton persisted in claiming he didn't even "know what (he) was signing" when he pardoned Rich.

In Libby's case, because Talk Radio host Rush Limbaugh has been critical of Libby's circumstance -- which I agree with, both the criticism and about what -- the Democrats apply a level of force upon Bush, Libby, the Executive Clemency Libby has received and indirectly upon Talk Radio itself (Talk Radio's got an opinion, which, if one takes the Democrats' screed seriously as to the Libby Clemency and why it occured, then that means -- in a Democrat strategy methodology -- that Talk Radio is responsible for the Loss of All Reason!).

To follow along with the Democrats' desperate screed, then, in these regards, one has to first accept that Democrats are blameless in crimes while Republicans are not.

Put that way, it becomes so simple to accept, then, that Bill Clinton's hundreds of presidential pardons were "good" while President Bush's one presidential clemency granted is "bad," especially if Rush Limbaugh has an opinion supporting the latter.

Democrats -- Hillary, Bill, Obama, various other Democrats -- demand amnesty for illegal aliens in our nation, including members of gangs, convicted felons (and/or), whatever. Not only amnesty but rewards for the violations of many of our nation's laws.

To a Democrat, then, the concept of justice seems to be no justice as long as it services the Party. Good Marxists, "good" criminals, all -- a criminal gang, if you will. No wonder they revile Talk Radio, it's not a realm they can suffer their "good" crime upon. And so Democrats' word bullets fly. For now.

Where is Tony Soprano when you really need him -- not to mention Carmela and her nails and that lashing tongue.

There is bad taste and then there is really, really bad taste. The first oftentimes meets with it's own reward -- sometimes bad taste is good and it works because of the unpredictable nature of what is appealing and how often that changes in time -- but when considering occurences of really, really bad taste, you just wonder how people can ever be so wrong about such big statements.

Of really, really bad taste issue here: Hillary Clinton attempting to simulate the Tony Soprano Crime Boss role and Bill Clinton replacing Carmela in Hillary Clinton's pitiful and embarrassing knock-off video. This is another appearance of the Clinton's continued knock-off public messaging in their own particular, really, really bad taste methods -- in this case, their foolish renactment of the ending scene from THE SOPRANOS Finale (Episode 86, MADE IN AMERICA) -- and it is both weird and creepy.

To repeat that, the Clinton knock-off video is both weird and creepy.

Perhaps the Clintons are yet again attempting to cash-in on their notorious (and reasonably believable) reputations as killers in public office (or otherwise, if their combined personal and professional histories can be believed and many people do), perhaps they are attempting to generate yet again a media trend and thus, to make it "theirs" by oogey possession, perhaps HIllary just wants yet more media mention of her name and hits to her site/s, but for whatever motivation, this video monstrosity of theirs is beyond pitiful, it is downright abusive.

Perhaps Bill Clinton's dialogue in this abusive, disgusting thing they've made -- when asked by Hillary-as-Crime Boss what he prefers as to a tune to play, Bill says he favors "Smashmouth" -- is closer to a fitting end for the Clintons than either of them recognizes, but, this knock-off is certainly the Clintons engaged in yet another attempt to whack the Presidency.

But worse is their knock-off of credible television and remarkable talent under ruse of being watchable.

Psychologically, someone prove to me that Hillary Clinton does not suffer from penis envy -- her obvious complex in that regard certainly explans Bill Clinton's anxieties and ongoing need to violently conquer if not destroy gender differences and why these two suffer in codependency, intent upon the destruction of democracy: George Washington and his ideals (and ideas, among what they represent) are just too threatening. No wonder Hillary Clinton is committed to reformatting the release into "the other."

Update:

Former Bill Clinton White House Assistant Laura Schwartz, appearing this evening on FOX News, THE O'REILLY FACTOR, says she "thought it was very original" and that she considers this latest Clinton knock-off to be "successful" because "over a million people viewed it on YouTube."

No. The ORIGINAL scene in the ORIGINAL Series is "original." This Clinton knock-off video is a reformatting bastardization of someone else's work (more finely put, it's been exploited and repurposed by those other than the original author), moreorless like reproduction or imitational reproduction "with edits." Forgeries aren't "original" and neither are reproductions.

And, "over a million people" visit all kinds of sites and videos on the internet -- sites offering the most marginal and oftentimes the worst content garner high visit counts. If general descriptive terms as to some site's marginal content were included here, THIS site's traffic would increase respectively (and so already has what with a few words already used in this thread). Traffic does not inherently define quality of content, nor originality.

I like parody but in this case, the Clinton knock-off video isn't parody, it's invasive escapade. Something the Clintons are familiar with, given their history -- and look, they haven't changed, not that I anticipated either of them would, could or had in mind.