Posted on 06/24/2011 8:57:48 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Michele Bachmann's efforts in 2007-8 to have Drug Dealer and Money Launderer Frank Vennes pardoned for his 1987 convictions have begun to receive some light scrutiny in the media. Some embarrassing details have emerged, including the fact that, while Bachmann was lobbying hard to secure a pardon for him from President Bush, Vennes himself was engaged in a brand new, massive $3.65 billion ponzi scheme, for which he was recently indicted by a Federal Grand Jury. Worse yet, Vennes and his family had donated money to Bachmann--a lot of money--in the 2006 and 2008 campaign cycles, $27,400 to be exact, making Vennes her largest donor by far. The most charitable thing one can say about this affair is that it showed colossally poor judgment on Bachmann's part. The propinquity of the donations and her efforts to secure a pardon could suggest a darker, even improper, motive, if the pardon efforts were proven to be a quid pro quo for the campaign cash. See the link below if you are interested in any more of the sordid details.
What struck me about the Vennes matter was not that Bachmann exercised poor judgment (which she certainly did) or that her lobbying on behalf of Vennes so soon after his huge donations to her were unethical and created at least the appearance of impropriety (which they certainly have). It was none of those things that I found so egregious, because politicians typically engage in such shenanigans on a daily basis, and Michele Bachmann is nothing if not a typical politician. What really struck me about the whole affair, and has been heretofore overlooked, is the letter Bachmann penned on Congressional stationery to the Pardon Attorney at the United States Department of Justice. By all means, read it and draw your own conclusions:
The specter of the lamestream media baying at the moon and salivating over the prospect of a veritable treasure trove of malapropisms within Sarah Palin's 24,000 emails made me wonder about Bachmann's talents as a wordsmith. To pique my curiosity further, the same lamestream media that was so sure it would find multiple "silver bullets" of incoherence within Palin's emails has pronounced Bachmann not only "coherent" and "disciplined" but downright "articulate." (Meghan Daum, LA Times, 6/23/2011) To their chagrin, Palin's emails turned out to be written more competently than most CEOs, scoring an impressive 8.5 on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test on which Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream Speech was an 8.8 and the Gettysburg Address was a 9.1. Indeed Palin's routine emails were more competently composed, according to this measure, than was Barack Obama's State of the Union Address, which came in at 7.7. And Bachmann? Well, I would love to have the Flesch-Kincaid test applied to her letter to the Pardon Attorney, a high ranking Justice Department official appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation. How, I wonder, would it score? Let's take a look at it, piece by piece.
Her third sentence is not only awkward, but also an unsupported non sequitur:
"As a U.S. Representative, I am confident of Mr Vennes' successful rehabilitation and that a pardon will be good for the neediest of society."
How, one might wonder, does her status as a U.S. Representative make her "confident" of Mr. Vennes' rehabilitation? Evidently she intended to remind the Pardon Attorney of her office, fearing that perhaps he had not noticed the letter head. After this bit of gratuitous horn blowing, Bachmann stumbles through the remainder of this awkward sentence in two parts, but without the same, parallel grammatical structure:
"I am confident of...and that"
This grammatical error, known as faulty parallelism, is rather more common among elementary school students than Congressmen, especially those who who constantly bray about their two law degrees and their experience as a "tax attorney for the IRS".
The next sentence, if you can call it that, is at once inane and downright painful to read:
"Granting a pardon to Mr. Vennes should be considered because pardons were intended to restore people to society like Mr. Vennes; people who have demonstrated true reformation and for whom mercy is due because the legal system cannot deliver a morally acceptable result."
The first part of it is an incomplete, circular thought, punctuated with a semicolon. The second part is an incomplete sentence. In between she opines that "mercy is due" when in fact mercy is never "due." If mercy were due, it would be justice, not mercy. And she inexplicably charges that the legal system in Vennes' case "cannot deliver a morally acceptable result." Is there some thought behind such a charge? How is it that the legal system failed to deliver a morally acceptable result? Vennes was convicted on his own guilty plea of crimes for which the government had overwhelming evidence. How was his conviction not a "morally acceptable result?" Anyone who would make such a statement does not understand the meaning of the phrase "morally acceptable result." Her use of the English language is as imprecise as her syntax is mangled.
The next sentence is no better:
"Mr Vennes' application shows he is a just recipient of a pardon"
Wrong again, Michele. He is not the just recipient of a pardon, since he had not yet received it (and, happily, he never did). What you meant to say was that he would be the just recipient of a pardon. Michele Bachmann, let me introduce you to the subjunctive mood. You should have met in the fifth grade, but I suppose it's better to meet late than never!
The letter meanders on, a string of words in search of a coherent thought. At points the Congresswoman waxes profound:
"So why does Mr. Vennes need a pardon if he is so successful? So he can help more people than he does."
She goes on to elaborate on the utility of a pardon for Mr Vennes and how a pardon will free him "to help so many more":
"Mr Vennes still encounters the barriers of his past and especially in the area of finance loan documents."
Indeed, those pesky prior money laundering convictions sure do get in the way of your ability to borrow money from banks for the needy (or for other worthy purposes like...ponzi schemes?). It raises the question, however: Does Bachmann believe it licit to go into debt in order to fund charitable activities? She notes in the third paragraph that, in just the previous three years, Vennes has directed over 10.7 million dollars to the "neediest in our society" (not to mention the $27,400 he steered into her campaign coffers). It does not appear that he was in dire need of loans for charitable activities or much of anything else.
The letter finally ends with this sentence:
"Knowing that pardons have been decreasingly granted , I am asking that courage be mustered to do justice for Mr. Vennes."
Decreasingly granted? This sounds like the syntax of a third grader. How about: "While I understand that pardons overall have declined of late..." There are any number of concise ways to express this thought. Bachmann chose none of them. I have seen many letters from Congressmen and Senators, and this one, which incidentally addresses a very important subject, is by far the least articulate of any of them.
If Sarah Palin penned such a ferociously illiterate missive, it would be on the front page of the New York Times as Exhibit A for her incompetence and incoherence. Yet Michele Bachmann, now the darling of CNN, the L.A. Times, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post and Chris Matthews of MSNBC, is called both "coherent" and "articulate," in spite of this stark evidence to the contrary. Ask yourselves why these two are treated differently.
After reading her mangled syntax, poor word usage and incoherent ramblings, I shudder at the thought of the Congresswoman from Minnesota turned loose upon an Inaugural Address. Fortunately, the chances of that are even slimmer than Mr. Vennes' current pardon possibilities.
They may be making you angry but they are not accomplishing anything else.
LLS
LOL. Typo in post hardly equates with the aforementioned syntactical butchery in an official letter to Main Justice.
In any event, mea culpa.
It's hard to miss Donna Brazile and Howard Dean praising Palin if you want to use that idiotic argument.
Karma is a bitch and it is about ready to come back on those that use these sort of sleazebag tactics.
Only in your world do two wrongs make a right.
“They may be making you angry but they are not accomplishing anything else.”
Well, LLS...at least they aren’t attacking the substance of my observations. Just calling me a “left wing English professor”. Can you imagine that? I don’t know whether I should be more insulted about being called an English professor or left wing. I’ll have to sleep on that one. LOL
This letter reads like it was written by an attorney you might find working for the IRS. That, of course, is exactly Rep. Bachmann’s background.
Thanks for posting my bona fides, ansel12. Of course, some of them won’t believe it. They will go to their grave believing I am a Soviet agent. They are still looking for “my blog”. If you run across it would you freepmail me the link? LOL
;)
“This letter reads like it was written by an attorney you might find working for the IRS. That, of course, is exactly Rep. Bachmann’s background.”
That was exactly my thought. I have known quite a few IRS attorneys over the years and, with one exception (and this exception left the IRS to become an AUSA) the IRS attorneys I have encountered are not the brightest bulbs in the federal orbit. Neither, from what I can glean, is Bachmann.
FRegards,
LH
By the way, here is one of my favorite cartoons. It's a little old, so remember to envision two more podiums: "Pro-Obomneycare" and "Anti-Obomneycare".
I’ve been pretty free about posting my doubts about Bachmann lately, but this post is not particularly helpful. I’m sorry to say it, but picking on her grammar just makes you look nit-picky and small. Your first point about the ethics and impropriety of writing a letter like this for a big campaign contributor are much more important in my book. You undercut the relevant point of this story with the grammar analysis.
What is the wrong?
Sorry, Jess. But I think grammar and clarity of expression are very important especially in official correspondence between a Congressman and the Department of Justice. I am not criticizing her for typos in emails or posts on the internet or twitter. This was an official letter in a very important case. It was very poorly written. ANd that is not inconsequential.
I want a President who can express himself (or herself) well, because the power of the Presidency is principally to persuade.
I did not hit the ethics as hard because that has already been the subject of numerous posts here.
The likely hood that she actually read, much less wrote this letter herself is less than average at best.
By the way, I am pretty certain that BHO couldn’t write his name in the snow!
OK. Let me put it this way. If your purpose was to persuade her followers to abandon ship, this is not going to do it. I have significant doubts about her and I just saw this as petty. If I do, they certainly will. On the other hand, if your purpose was just to sing to the choir, then I guess you accomplished your mission.
That’s right. A proud “Palinista.” You did a huge disservice with your post. You stooped to their level. Idiot.
What is her record in that area, is it strong?
Is that the, “it was in Hillary’s handwriting joke”?
Never said he was leftwing, only that he makes Palin supporters look bad. We’re better than the crap he posted.
Don’t post to me.
thanks bud. great example of an alinski ad hominem. innuendo, guilt by association, even bringing out the grammar police.
i think i’ll write check for michele. thanks again for the tip.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.