By bringing in a supporter of Hillary Clinton, Erica Barnett* from an alternative newspaper, the Stranger, to join the usual four, all of them supporters of the candidate who must not be middle-named, Barack Obama. One can't say that the host, KUOW's Steve Scher, doesn't have a sense of humor. No sense of fairness, at least toward Republicans, independents, conservatives, and moderates, but definitely a sense of humor.
But that was as far as the political diversity went. The program earned a grade of 0.0 for the third straight time. There was nothing on the program, not even an email from a listener, that was not leftist, nothing that was even mildly critical of the Democratic party.
An example of the bias today: Knute Berger, the former editor of another alternative newspaper, the Seattle Weekly, spoke darkly about the threats to the candidate who must not be middle-named from the "Republican attack machine. As a member of the Democratic attack machine, Berger knows something about the subject. While he was running the Weekly, he published stories quoting a local preacher saying that President Bush is the Antichrist. That goes beyond the bounds of reasonable criticism, at least for me.
D. Parvaz, an editorial writer for the Seattle PI, gave us another example of that bias when she claimed that the quality of life in the US has "deteriorated" in the last seven years. As usual, she did not show her work, did not explain how she had come to that conclusion. Nor did she define "quality of life", so I can't tell for sure whether she committed an enormous factual error. But by the usual definitions, we are far better off than we were seven years ago. The air and water are cleaner, family incomes are higher, home ownership is higher, productivity has surged, school test scores are up a little, and so forth.
Erica Barnett showed surprising ignorance for a leftist, when she wondered whether the Communist party still exists. It does. (And there are some splinter groups with "Communist" in their names.) And the party endorsed John Kerry in 2004. That news may not have made any of the Seattle newspapers, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Danny Westneat, the Seattle Times columnist, discussed a recent column of his on Obama's experience as a community organizer. (Questions: Was the community better organized after Obama was there? Was it better off for being better organized?) Westneat seems to think that experience more important to understanding Obama than Obama's bizarre church, or his ties to a convicted fixer, Tony Rezko. (I missed a minute or two of the program, but I did not hear them mention Rezko — who has been in the news recently.) I suspect that Obama's experience with the Chicago machine is far more important, but that subject was not even raised by the gang.
Last week, I gave some hints to the gang. Today, I would like to add just one more: If they want to be taken seriously by serious people, they should not rely entirely on sources such as Glenn Greenwald and Jon Stewart. (If you don't know why Greenwald is not universally respected, try this search string in your favorite search engine: "Glenn Greenwald + sock puppet".)
At the end of the program, Scher apologized for not having time to discuss the public display of affection at the Mariners game. Let me be the first to say that the program was frivolous enough, without discussing two affectionate lesbians.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(*In an earlier program, Barnett told us that she hoped that the taxpayers would build a train to make her commute easier. A heavily subsidized train. We should be grateful, I suppose, that she does not want the taxpayers to provide her with a chauffeured limousine — though that might be cheaper than the train.
Is there anything that would make the program more open to ideas from people not on the left? Maybe this, though of course I don't think we should go that far. But I can't think, offhand, of anything less that would do the trick.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 06, 2008 01:50 PM | Email ThisIt's never going to happen, but it is entertaining to watch foolish people continue to try and hide from reality.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 6, 2008 04:29 PMFOR YOUR READERS:
Evelyn Pringle has just completed her series on Obama at opednews.com. You should review the articles, and then review the discussion of 18 USC 1346 provided, in order to see for what activities Obama will be indicted:
Final Chapter - Curtain Time for Barack Obama Evelyn Pringle 05/22/2008 2
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part V Evelyn Pringle 05/18/2008 9
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part IV Evelyn Pringle 05/16/2008 22
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part III Evelyn Pringle 05/15/2008 11
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part II Evelyn Pringle 05/13/2008 15
Curtain Time For Barack Obama - Part I Evelyn Pringle 05/12/2008 33
THEN, your readers should study this EXCELLENT discussion of 18 USC 1346 from:
http://www.groom.com/_library/downloads/NAPPAArticle-Feb2006.pdf.
This article provides brief guidance as to the manner in which courts have interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which generally provides that for purposes of federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively), a “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a “scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right to honest services.” Specifically, this article examines the manner in which courts have interpreted the broad language of § 1346 in circumstances that do not involve the explicit bribery of public officials.
I.
Background
18 U.S.C. § 1346 was enacted in 1988, for purposes of reversing the Supreme Court’s decision in McNally v. U.S.,483 U.S. 350 (1987). In McNally, the Supreme Court overruled a long line of lower court decisions by holding that the federal mail and wire fraud statutes did not encompass schemes to defraud citizens of an intangible right to honest government service from pubic officers. Id. at 355. By enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Congress restored “honest services” within the ambit of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, meaning that a scheme to deprive the public of “honest services” by a public official could be punished as mail or wire fraud (assuming, of course, that such an instrumentality was used as part of the scheme or artifice).
II.
Judicial Interpretations of the “Honest Services” Fraud
A.
General Parameters of the Statute
Not surprisingly, the majority of cases that have analyzed the “honest services” fraud set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 have involved the bribery of public officials, where the charge under § 1346 is in addition to other charges. However, there have been numerous prosecutions under § 1346 against public officials (and those who have corrupted public officials) for transactions that do not involve outright bribery, but which nonetheless involve the provision of cash or gifts to a public official in exchange for the public official’s exercise of power on behalf of the individual or entity providing the gratuity.
Courts have recognized that the term “honest services,” as used in § 1346, is incredibly broad, but the statute has survived repeated challenges asserting that it is unconstitutionally vague, with courts resorting to a “common sense” usage of the phrase “honest services.” In rejecting a constitutional void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute’s wording, one court opined that “[c]oncrete parameters outlining the duty of honest services should not be necessary. . . . The concept of the duty of honest services sufficiently conveys warning of the proscribed conduct when measured in terms of common understanding and practice.” U.S. v. ReBrook, 837 F. Supp. 162, 171 (S.D. W. Va. 1993), aff’d. 58 F.3d 961 (4 th Cir. 1995). Another court demonstrated little patience for the defendant’s void-for-vagueness challenge in the context of a kickback scheme, holding that “[i]t should be plain to ordinary people that offering and accepting large sums of money in exchange for a city councilman’s vote is a type of conduct proscribed by the language of § 1346.” U.S. v. Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266, 1283 (11 th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, courts have refused to allow § 1346 to be used as a “catch-all” that subjects every unethical or illegal act to federal mail and wire fraud prosecution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 654-56 (7 th
Cir. 1998) (noting, inter alia, that “not every breach of fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud”); U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir. 2003) (”the right to honest services is not violated by every breach of contract, breach of duty, conflict of interest, or misstatement made in the course of dealing”). Recognizing the difficulty of interpreting the undefined phrase “honest services,” courts have attempted to establish general criteria that must be satisfied to successfully assert an “honest services” fraud claim. One of the leading circuits interpreting the scope of the honest services fraud is the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that: First, . . . honest services convictions of public officials typically involve serious corruption, such as embezzlement of public funds, bribery of public officials, or the failure of public decision-makers to disclose conflicts of interest. Second, . . . the broad scope of the mail fraud statute . . . does not encompass every instance of official misconduct that results in the official’s personal gain. Third, and most importantly, . . . the government must not merely indicate wrongdoing by a public official, but must also demonstrate that the wrongdoing at issue is intended to prevent or call into question the proper or impartial performance of the public servant’s official duties. U.S. v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1076 (1 st Cir. 1997) (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted), (discussing the First Circuit’s prior decision in U.S. v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1996). The Seventh Circuit has held that “[m]isuse of office (more broadly, misuse of position) for private gain is the line that separates run of the mill violations of state law fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime.” U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 655 (7 th Cir. 1998). The court went on to note that “in almost all of the intangible rights cases decided . . . (before McNally or since § 1346), the defendant used his office for private gain, as by accepting a bribe in exchange for official action[,]” but also noted that “[s]ecret conversion of information received in a fiduciary capacity is a form of fraud against the owner of that information.” Id. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit summarized its test for an honest services fraud as follows: “[a]n employee deprives his employer of his honest services only if he misuses his position (or the information he obtained in it) for personal gain” (emphasis added). Id. at 656-57.
Heck, the Dems could have nominated Dennis the Menace Kucinich and they'd still win in November. You GOP-ers are gonna have to sit this one out, 'cause John McCain ain't gonna win over Obama. You lived through Jimmy Carter, so I guess you can make it through Obama's term in office, too.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on June 6, 2008 07:02 PMI watch the cars pour out of local high schools at lunchtime, the kids glued to expensive cell phones. The doom and gloom rhetoric of the Democrats doesn't exactly match reality.
Listen to every speech Obama gives. He always mentions that he "met someone just today" that lives under a bridge, can't get healthcare for his son, works two jobs and is still homeless, and on and on. The list from their playbook is endless. Hillary used the same phony technique, and Edwards did it while he was campaigning as well. Of course these are just lies, but lying is something the left does with impunity.
These joyful folks on the left now are going to ban bonfires at Alki and Golden Gardens beaches. You do have to give the left credit, they push their socialist agenda relentlessly. Using public dollars for their purposes is old hat, just ask Bill Moyers.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 7, 2008 08:07 AM