Your previous comments have failed to address the entire point of this exchange: the fact that you claimed Mr. Johnson had "stipulated" that no crime has been committed. You linked to a comment that clearly did no such thing, and claimed others were playing wordgames in your defense!

You don't get to redefine words to meet your own needs, Mr. King, nor do you get to make up others' arguments for them to make your life easier. By claiming Mr. Johnson had "stipulated" that no crime had been committed, you claimed that he had agreed to such (the plain meaning of the word). He has not done so, as can clearly be seen in the link you provided. That's your strawman; you burn it.

No one is playing wordgames here but you, Mr. King. Ironically, you're being (dare I say it) highly Clintonian.

You had several chances to back up your assertion or retract it. You've done neither, and as is probably fairly obvious to even the most casual observer here, you've lost this debate.

You future comments here should (and I believe, will) be treated with the deference due to someone incapable of basic honesty.

Posted at February 26, 2007 8:27 PM in response to Crickets at the Washington Post

OK, what part of "I think" is unclear? Unless you pick and choose from the statement, to most reasonable people it's fairly obvious an opinion is being stated.

What's more, if this is his opinion (or his certain belief), then why did you make the claim that Mr. Johnson had "stipulated that no crime had been committed"? Or are you now acknowledging that you were dishonest in your original claim?

Ironically, even if one allows that Mr. Johnson has contradicted himself (or simply changed his mind, due to additional information over time), the one opinion he has NOT stated was the affirmative one you claimed he had made. You have yet to provide more than your plainly counterfactual interpretation of his words in support of your assertion.

The meaning of the word "stipulate" is not in dispute here. Your claim, plainly not supported by the link you provided, is the issue -- as is your credibility.

Posted at February 26, 2007 2:39 PM in response to Crickets at the Washington Post

As I noted, people are free to look at the post and judge for themselves. I'll simply note that nowhere does Mr. Johnson say what you claimed he said. It's up to the reader to decide whether or not your "interpretation" of his words is reasonable.

I just went back and re-re-read the comments you quoted. To me, it's rather obvious that claiming uncertainty on an issue is not the same thing as claiming certain knowledge one way or another (the difference between saying "I don't know whether a crime was committed", as Mr. Johnson did, and saying "I acknowledge no crime was committed", as you claim he did). It's also not contradictory to claim uncertainty yet express an opinion (which is what one is doing when one says "I think a crime was committed", as Mr. Johnson did two years later) one way or another.

Note: that stated opinion is the opposite of what you claimed; nonetheless, you proceeded to claim he meant the opposite of what he wrote.

In fact, it's rather an unusual level of honesty to acknowledge one's limitations in expertise and express one's opinion not as certain fact (a common failing of wingnuts), but as an opinion.

Unfortunately for those of us to whom truth takes a back seat to promoting an ideology, the modern blogosphere makes misrepresentation much more difficult than it was at one time.

Posted at February 26, 2007 1:57 PM in response to Crickets at the Washington Post

You know, if you're going to claim someone said something, you might try NOT linking to the original comment unless they actually said what you claim.

I read the prior piece, and I just re-read it. I can find no reference to Larry "stipulating that no crime was committed". In his first comment, he indicated he wasn't certain. In the second quote (from a piece two years later), he indicated that he believed the law was broken. Despite your obvious desire to impeach Johnson's credibility (and despite the fact that the quotes are taken out of context), those comments are not actually contradictory. And in any case, he did not "stipulate that no crime was committed".

I invite others to follow the link and verify your honesty for themselves. I then invite them to consider that honesty (or is it reading comprehension?) when evaluating your future comments.

Posted at February 26, 2007 12:10 PM in response to Crickets at the Washington Post

I believe the term you're looking for is "Democratic Kool-Aid Kids", JB.

Posted at February 26, 2007 12:09 PM in response to Crickets at the Washington Post

The latest out of the LA Times clears this whole thing up a lot.

Rove and Libby's lawyers are trying to put on a brave face, pointing out that Rove (at least) hasn't been told he'll be charged.  Evidently, there was a conference call with Republicans earlier, and my money is on a couple of people who tuned in being the New York Times' sources.

From the sound of things, this did NOT come from Fitzgerald's office.  It came from the only ones who have ever been leaking in all of this: Rove and Libby's lawyers. 

This is nothing more than the Fitz keeping Rove and Libby guessing, the lawyers trying to put out hopeful vibes and subtly pressure Fitzgerald to be nice and a not-so-subtle effort, once again, to paint Libby as the main culprit. 

Posted at October 27, 2005 8:49 PM in response to Early Word on Indictments

...the latest reporting from the Washington Post, which specifically said its sources said the term of the grand jury would not be extended.

 There's way too much "anonymous sourcing" going on for my taste.  Too much rumor-mongering.  I think I'll wait now for the Fitz to make announcements.

Posted at October 27, 2005 7:57 PM in response to Early Word on Indictments

It's not enough to have a security clearance.  You also have to have a need to know the information in question.  Otherwise, it's still a violation of classified information handling protocols.

And obtaining a secret-level clearance is a little involved -- it includes a background check for criminal record, a check of your financial and credit records, etc.

Posted at October 16, 2005 1:03 PM in response to Miller's Security Clearance

Frankly, I see this as a desperation move.  As Rovian dirty tricks go, this isn't terribly savvy, nor is it likely to be very effective.

Republicans would like nothing better at this point than to be able to create headlines such as "Congress probes serious questions regarding special counsel's conduct".  But given what the public already knows about this issue, I have real trouble seeing that making much headway, and it could backfire badly. 

Rove's tactics work the best when they weave a lie that is plausible, both in the nature of the lie itself (the more audacious, the better) and in the creation of an illusion of legitimacy surrounding the lie.  The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's campaign worked because, at least in part, it was veterans doing the accusing.  It also worked due to the willing complacency of the target, and the nature of political campaigns when the target is a relative unknown.

I see little of that going for Rove's latest gambit. It's likely to be seen as an attack on a lawman by those with a vested interest and ulterior motive in doing so.  Not exactly what I'd call good prospects for success, and easy to defend against.

Posted at July 25, 2005 7:21 PM in response to White House sends Sen. Roberts after Fitzgerald

On the other hand, Roberts is on record with some explicit statements regarding Roe v. Wade that are very much out of the mainstream--kind of the last thing the post-Schiavo, post-Social Security phaseout, post-nuclear-option, ongoing-Iraq-debacle, coddle-the-classified-info-leakers GOP needs right now.  I don't think any of us should assume Roberts' ride onto the SCOTUS will be smooth, or that Bush will emerge unscathed.

Posted at July 19, 2005 9:01 PM in response to Some Initial Reactions to Roberts