Legal scholars troubled over Democrats' memo

Washington Times ^ | 3/19/04 | Charles Hurt

[Elkiejg]

As the dust settles in the Judiciary Committee fuss over Republican snooping into Democrats' memos, several legal scholars said yesterday they were shocked by a memo showing staffers in Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's office plotting to manipulate one of the most significant court cases in recent years.

[Bahbah]

"I don't want to comment on stolen materials," Mr. Sunstein said. "Even if there is something bad in there, it would be improper of me -- and possibly of you -- to comment on them."

This is the weakest, most duplicitous, lying so and so imaginable. Improper to comment on the disgusting machinations of Kennedy and his ilk. Think he wants us to shut up and maybe this will just go away?

[OldFriend]

Unless, of course, in involveds the Pentagon Papers stolen by Daniel Ellsberg.

[OldFriend]

Unless, of course, in involved the Pentagon Papers stolen by Daniel Ellsberg.

[John Thornton]

They are making an argument based on appeal to "law" ("the memos were stolen should should be ignored) when the memos prove that "law" was the last thing on their minds---all they care about is subverting the rule of law and enforcing their extremist views against the people.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

CAN YOU IMAGINE ?

[kristinn]

More great work by Charles Hurt. You'll never see this in The Washington Post or New York Times.

[leftcoaster]

"I don't want to comment on stolen materials," Mr. Sunstein said. "Even if there is something bad in there, it would be improper of me -- and possibly of you -- to comment on them."

Oh, really?

What about the fellonious leak of SCOTUS nominee Clarence Thomas' raw FBI files? These very players decrying the release of this information, which I don't believe was serious enough to be even classified as a felony, were not affraid to see anyone comment on THAT illegally-acquired information that was intended to destroy one man's career.

There was also the audio of an illegally recorded cell phone call by SotH Newt Gingrich that was released to the NYT by a Rat member of Congress a few years back. Again, they all loved to comment about that, and what it meant, regardless of the fellonious acts that were used to make it public.

[Bahbah]

So you too detected a wee bit of hypocrisy then!

[Just mythoughts]

This is what happens when "justice" gets perverted by perverts.

[Morgan's Raider]

The Kennedy aide went on to say she was "a little concerned about the propriety" of stalling a nominee based on the outcome of a particular case, but endorsed the strategy anyway.

Didn't Jimmy Hoffa go to prison for essentially the same thing? Appears to ne this is very akin to jury tampering. And unlike Teddy Kennedy, I'll bet Hoffa probably had a couple of socially redeeming qualities.

[an amused spectator]

"I don't want to comment on stolen materials," Mr. Sunstein said. "Even if there is something bad in there, it would be improper of me -- and possibly of you -- to comment on them."

Cas Sunstein needs to start reading his own book on the dangers of exclusively hanging around websites like Democratic Underground. ;-)

[tang-soo]

As an aside, if I remember correctly, it was Turly's admonishing article in a legal journal that finally gave the Paul Jones case legs.

[NYCVirago]

The only legal scholars contacted by The Washington Times who did not condemn the Kennedy memo were University of Chicago's Cass R. Sunstein and Harvard University's Lawrence H. Tribe, two law professors who are widely credited with developing the current Democratic strategies to block Republican nominees.

Shocker!

[ConservativeGadfly]

Apparently Elaine Jones, former NAACP LDF president, has hired David Kendall to be her defense lawyer. Several organizations -- Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, Project 21, CORE and Center for Individual Freedom -- filed a complaint with the Virginia bar against Ms. Jones.

And now she's brought in Kendall. Must be something to all of this.

[abner]

Mr. Kendall?

Yikes!

I was really hoping he slithered into obscurity.

[familyofman]

"Wow," Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley said when he read the memo. "It raises very serious questions about propriety. On its face, there is an element of complicity and dishonesty."

Ok - a little help here decoding the legalese.
Definitions; propriety complicity dishonesty

I thought the issue was illegality. Do any of the parsed words used equal say, criminal or unlawful. Attorneys and profrssors always use words that appear precise but many times are open to slanting. Any legal folks around care to clear this up for me?

[Interesting Times]

And now she's brought in Kendall. Must be something to all of this.

That's a good sign, actually.

They only bring him in to lose the big ones.

[Bob J]

Things are heating up, any chance it getting in the mainstream?

[The SISU kid]

Move along.....nothing to see here folks...

Same old, same old. Let the ends justify the means....

[DoctorMichael]

"....Glad to see the WashTimes is keeping this story in the news....."

Too bad there is no point-man assigned to this on the Republican side. They're all asleep over there anyways.