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.
Isn’t this all part of that pardon scandal?
What a crybaby lib response.
What a wimp.
Post 59 tells the whole story.
Brices Crossroads, have you had any drinks tonight, you seem not at your usual exceptional self.
There are no new jokes.
Just the same old stories with different names.
(And occasionally different proclivities.)
But is that the writing in the snow joke?
“Most English professors I know are leftwing idiots.”
I taught English briefly and hated it - now I know why! LOL
LOL, it is late at night, on a Friday, I thought I was reading between the lines but I wanted to be sure. If you look at this thread, you will see that it is a little disjointed, a little off center. A few off us, including me, are not at our best here.
Now to be kind, you should share the entire joke for the the thread.
If memory serves, the original (circa 1974) had the USSS reporting to the President that the ink was Henry's but the handwriting was Pat's.
In the words of Johnny Carson, I did not know that, that is weird, wild stuff. Truly, nothing is new.
Strongher than Obama’s!
Do you know how Congressional offices operate? Staffers write the letters and a robo-signer adds the signature. As someone noted upthread, if this is the best folks can come up with for attacking Bachmann, she’s in pretty good shape, at least on the scandal front, its literacy or lack of same notwithstanding.
Congressional staffers tend too often to be the offspring of influential constituents, or somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody. The average age of Hill employees has to be about 22-23. They are typically recent college (or law school) grads who are paid about the same as the burger flippera at McD’s. They stay for a year or two, develop the contacts they need, and move on their career paths to more lucrative careers.
After the brouhaha with Clinton’s pardons on his way out, there was no way Bush was going to follow suit. These letters from Congressmen really aren’t that important (except, of course, to the potential pardonee), and were less so in the waning days of Bush’s term. At that point, anyone at a high level in the DOJ was too busy circulating his or her own resume to worry much (if at all) about what some Congressman wanted. Those Bush pardons were few and far between, and everyone knew that was going to be the case.
She has a strong record of leading and passing powerful, effective, conservative, legislation?
Like I said - There are no new jokes.
Why would you say that, you know very well that the biggest scandal that is devastating Bachmann, is her hiring Rollins and setting out on a strategy to attack and destroy Governor Palin.
What u said and then some
Its disgusting
So now we have a Palin supporter returning the favor pointing out the poor grammar used by Bachmann or one of her surrogates.
Now certainly grammar and the correction of it(lol) isn't something that I pay much attention to. But I do enjoy seeing good examples of the Law of Karma.
None of her errors should embarrass.
Well, you know, except for the fact that the guy was a felon several times over, and was engaged in yet more felonies while she was trying to pardon him.
Except for that, they got nothin'.
Only the twit who thinks they are important (and lives in his Mom’s basement) would think them relevant.
Sorry, but taking money to shill for some low-life criminal who wants a pardon is relevant. At the moment, it isn't a deal-breaker for me, but it does show shockingly bad judgment.
I’m a Palin supporter first, but this is total nothingness.
The spelling & grammar part, yes. The underlying incident, no. I would like for her to address it and move on. I do think she has a lot to say, and would hate for this to bog her down.
You seem to have blinders on. Do you actually believe that ANY conservative much less Republican will not be vilified by the MSM. They are not only in bed with the Obamabots, they are the Obamabots.
Bachman is a Conservative that has the ability and drive to articulate the Conservative message. It is in our best interest to nominate and push for a Conservative alternative to Obama. The fact is that if the economy continues to sputter, as is likely based on his policies, their is a very good chance to run Obama out.
We will not win with Obama light Romney, or even worse the boring Huntsman. Winning the presidency is only half the battle, once we have it we need a real fighter in order to reverse the damage done by the idiot in chief.
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.