prosecutor Barry Krischer has spent two years and hundreds of
thousands of dollars trying to find some criminal charge to bring
against Rush Limbaugh. Political hack Ronnie Earle spent three
years and went through six grand juries to indict Tom DeLay. Liberals
spent the last two years fantasizing in public about Karl Rove
being indicted. Newt Gingrich was under criminal investigation
for 3 1/2 years back in the '90s when liberals were afraid of
him. Final result: No crime.
And of course,
everybody cool in the Reagan administration was indicted. Or at
least investigated and persecuted. Reagan's sainted attorney general
Ed Meese was criminally investigated for 14 months before the
prosecutor announced that he didn't have anything (but denounced
Meese as a crook anyway).
I note that
nobody ever wanted to indict Bob Dole or Gerald Ford (except,
of course, other Republicans).
In the Nixon
administration, liberals even brought "Deep Throat"
up on charges -- and he was one of you people! What, now I'm not
even as hip as "Deep Throat"?
a lot for my country. I think I deserve to be indicted, too. How
am I supposed to show my face around Washington if I haven't been
"frog-marched" out of my office by some liberal D.A.
looking to move to D.C. for the next Democratic administration?
What's a girl have to do to become a "person of interest"
around here? Mr. Krischer, where do I go to get rid of my reputation?
has been going around calling El Rushbo a criminal for more than
two years but has yet to bring any charges. Last month, Krischer's
assistant, James Martz, told the court that his office has "no
idea" if Limbaugh has even committed a crime. I'm no lawyer
-- hey, wait a minute, yes I am! -- but it sounds like maybe Krischer's
maid has been out scoring him stupid pills again.
are fanatics about privacy when it comes to man-boy sex and stabbing
forks into partially-born children. But a maid alleges that she
bought Rush Limbaugh a few Percodans, and suddenly the government
has declared a war on prescription painkillers.
are more optimistic about the charges against Tom DeLay than they
are about the charges against Saddam Hussein -- and the only living
things Tom DeLay ever exterminated were rats and bugs.
In the remaining
money-laundering case against DeLay, the prosecutors have acknowledged
that they cannot produce the actual list of candidates who allegedly
gained from the purported money-laundering scheme. But they hope
to introduce a facsimile cobbled together from someone's memory.
words, during Rathergate, the case against the president consisted
of a faked memo, whereas the case against Tom DeLay consists of
an imaginary one.
these are not brought at random. They are brought against people
who pose the greatest threat to liberals. (What am I? Miss Congeniality?)
difference between the Stalin-era prosecutions -- also enthusiastically
defended by liberals -- and these prosecutions is that it's possible
to get acquitted here. But the validity of the charges is about
way to stop the left's criminalization of conservatism is to start
calm persuasion that convinced liberals the independent counsel
law was a bad idea. It was an independent prosecutor investigating
Bill Clinton (who actually was a felon!).
logical argument that got them to admit that -- sometimes -- women
do lie about sexual harassment. It was half a dozen women accusing
Bill Clinton of groping, flashing or raping them.
the plain facts that got liberals to admit that, sometimes, "objective"
news reports can be biased. It was the appearance of Fox News
rustle up a right-wing prosecutor to indict Teddy Kennedy for
Mary Jo Kopechne's drowning? Unlike the cases against Limbaugh
and DeLay, Mary Jo's death was arguably a crime, and we could
probably prove it in court.