Why is Marion Jones going to jail? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Strange Famous · 01-11-2008, 04:57 PM

I understand she loses her medals, but what criminal offence has she committed??

Fotzlid · 01-11-2008, 05:06 PM

Jones, 32, pleaded guilty in October to lying to federal agents over a steroid distribution scandal involving California laboratory BALCO and her role in a cheque fraud scheme.

perjury and she was involved with a check-fraud case

Daoust · 01-11-2008, 05:20 PM

If perjury means that she lied under oath, then yes, that. Six months was the maximum sentence.

highthief · 01-11-2008, 05:59 PM

Hope they catch a few more such cheats but more importantly tighten up the drug testing. She was tested over 100 times in and out of competition, but the BALCO designer drugs were never found. Apparently, there are better tests available than that which the Olympics and IAAF use, but the cost is higher (and I think they are afraid they'll catch over half the athletes at major competitions, too).

host · 01-11-2008, 06:13 PM

Because Jones represented our country so well in the 2000 summer olympic games, I'm fairly certain our president will step up, as he did recently, here. She has two young sons at home, and her crimes were certainly less serious than Mr. Libby's were....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070702-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 2, 2007

Statement by the President on Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby

....I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But <h3>I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.</h3>

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

ottopilot · 01-11-2008, 07:53 PM

So what does Scooter and GW have to do with Marion Jones going to jail?
Marion Jones should get a presidential pardon?

dlish · 01-12-2008, 03:48 AM

i think you will find that hosts' comment was tongue in cheek

marion lied under oath. she got caught up in cheque fraud with her former boyfriend (and former 100m world record holder) tim montgomery who has been banned from racing due to drugs also.

she deserves what she got. being a single mum is no excuse, nor should it be.

i personally think they went easy on her.

Strange Famous · 01-12-2008, 05:50 AM

sending a woman to prison is a pretty serious thing.

Tophat665 · 01-12-2008, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

So what does Scooter and GW have to do with Marion Jones going to jail?
Marion Jones should get a presidential pardon?

Well, the crime he was going to jail for was essentially the same as hers - lying under oath. And if I understand it properly, her lying was about actions that may have affected national prestige, but surely didn't affect national security or ruin any careers other than her own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

sending <s>a woman</s> anyone to prison is a pretty serious thing.

Fixed that for ya.

Strange Famous · 01-13-2008, 02:15 AM

It is completely different to send a man to prison than to imprison a women. It is far more serious to imprison a woman, especially a mother. What crime have her children committed to deserve this punishment?

Charlatan · 01-13-2008, 04:07 AM

First of all, Host... that was a bit of unrelated nonsense. Please take your grindstone elsewhere.

Second, sending a woman to prison is not more or less serious than sending a man. To suggest otherwise is pretty sexist. Crime is crime. To the crime be prepared to do the time.

highthief · 01-13-2008, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

It is completely different to send a man to prison than to imprison a women. It is far more serious to imprison a woman, especially a mother. What crime have her children committed to deserve this punishment?

You're joking right?

Women should be allowed to commit crime (in this case something called "fraud" - as in cheque fraud, which is stealing - and perjury) while men should be imprisoned for the same crimes?

Marion Jones is a thief, a liar, a cheat, and a criminal - fell no sympathy for the likes of her.

Strange Famous · 01-13-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

First of all, Host... that was a bit of unrelated nonsense. Please take your grindstone elsewhere.

Second, sending a woman to prison is not more or less serious than sending a man. To suggest otherwise is pretty sexist. Crime is crime. To the crime be prepared to do the time.

No, it is not called sexism, it is called the decent upon of humankind.

To think that men and women should be treated by the same standards is intolerable.

Should women be sent to the front line of a war, to fight and die like men? Of course not.

In the worst cases a woman may be sent to prison, but it is a pretty serious thing, especially as she is also a mother.

In my opinion it is pretty sexist to say that women should be thrown in jail just the same as if they were some kind of common hoodlums, because her boyfriend mixed her up in some bad business, and she lied about cheating in a sport.

Cheating is cheating, and the only punishment for cheating in a sport should relate to sanctions by the governing body of the sport. If she is said to have committed perjury presumably she was questioned by some kind of court about drug taking, but drug taking in sport is not a criminal offense, so why was she compelled to make statements under oath? The cads who would place a young mother in this situation are as much villians as the coaches who exploited her and forced the steroids on her.

Tophat665 · 01-13-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

No, it is not called sexism, it is called the decent upon of humankind.

SF - it may not be pernicious sexism, but that doesn't make it any less sexist, whether I were to agree with your overall point or not.

Quote:

To think that men and women should be treated by the same standards is intolerable.

And yet, the only difference that ought to matter is plumbing.

Quote:

Should women be sent to the front line of a war, to fight and die like men? Of course not.

Of course they should. Fewer wars that way.

Quote:

In the worst cases a woman may be sent to prison, but it is a pretty serious thing, especially as she is also a mother.

More serious than having her child tended by a criminal? The problem with the position you're taking is it diminishes the seriousness of sending a man to prison. It is a potentially life destroying event. Of the two guys I know who went to prison, one is (for all I know) still there (for repeatedly violating his probation) and the other - one of the 2 or 3 most brilliant minds I have ever encountered - is working at a halfway house and engaged in pirate radio. This from a guy who really ought to be running the country.

Quote:

In my opinion it is pretty sexist to say that women should be thrown in jail just the same as if they were some kind of common hoodlums, because her boyfriend mixed her up in some bad business, and she lied about cheating in a sport.

We'll get to cheating. Her boyfriend mixing her up in some bad business 1) is way too generous, I think and 2) pretty much the definition of Common Hoodlum. I'd say it were sexist to limit attribution hooliganism solely to men. There are oh so many female punks and criminals out there, and the number is going up.

Quote:

Cheating is cheating, and the only punishment for cheating in a sport should relate to sanctions by the governing body of the sport.

AMEN! There is nothing about sport so serious that it should ever rise to the level of a criminal offense.

Quote:

If she is said to have committed perjury presumably she was questioned by some kind of court about drug taking, but drug taking in sport is not a criminal offense, so why was she compelled to make statements under oath?

Didn't work for Clinton either. (I sympathize, but that's not the way the law works.)

Quote:

The cads who would place a young mother in this situation are as much villians as the coaches who exploited her and forced the steroids on her.

Cads - yes, but for reasons unrelated to this particular instance.

I think you have an idealized vision of this woman. I doubt she was forced to do anything. Being scum, like any other occupation, has become equal opportunity. I'm not saying that's what she is, jut that it can't be ruled out on the basis of sex. Or motherhood, for that matter. Plenty of delightful stories out there proving that it's often a very good idea to separate mother from children. Google "Fark Mother of the Year" for links to a panoply of such instances.

highthief · 01-13-2008, 10:31 AM

So, to get out of going to jail, a woman should just get knocked up, and then we can give her a pass? Because that is what you are suggesting.

Additionally, you minimize the importance of fatherhood, it seems. Should fathers not go to prison either? Do I get a break if I commit a crime because I have a young child?

If I die on the front line of a war, is it less tragic than if the dental hygenist next door gets blown up? My life has less value?

If women want the same opportunities as men - to be high earning pro athletes like Marion Jones, to be world leaders like Maggie Thatcher or possibily Hillary Clinton, to run Fortune 500 companies like Martha Stewart - they can enjoy those opportunities, but if they fall afoul of the law, they must pay the penalty just as the other 50% of humanity would.

dlish · 01-13-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

So, to get out of going to jail, a woman should just get knocked up, and then we can give her a pass? Because that is what you are suggesting.

Additionally, you minimize the importance of fatherhood, it seems. Should fathers not go to prison either? Do I get a break if I commit a crime because I have a young child?

If I die on the front line of a war, is it less tragic than if the dental hygenist next door gets blown up? My life has less value?

If women want the same opportunities as men - to be high earning pro athletes like Marion Jones, to be world leaders like Maggie Thatcher or possibily Hillary Clinton, to run Fortune 500 companies like Martha Stewart - they can enjoy those opportunities, but if they fall afoul of the law, they must pay the penalty just as the other 50% of humanity would.

as he said. child or no child. u do the crime. u do the time

The_Jazz · 01-13-2008, 11:34 AM

host, I always get a chuckle when you try to derail a thread as only you can do. Nice try, though.

SF - I certainly appreciate the sentiment of your statement. In a perfect world, it makes sense. Unfortunately, if it were to come to pass, it would be abused in this world.

Ustwo · 01-13-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

sending a woman to prison is a pretty serious thing.

They get to vote.

They get to do time.

Ilow · 01-13-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

In my opinion it is pretty sexist to say that women should be thrown in jail just the same as if they were some kind of common hoodlums, because her boyfriend mixed her up in some bad business, and she lied about cheating in a sport.

The cads who would place a young mother in this situation are as much villians as the coaches who exploited her and forced the steroids on her.

Why would you assume that it was the company that she kept that got her into the trouble. It was herself that got her in trouble. She chose to hang out with her OTHER ex too, shot putter CJ HUnter who was also either implicated or guilty (can't recall) of PED's. She is a smart girl who knew exactly what she was doing, to think anything less is the same kind of sexism that leads you to think that she shouldn't go to jail at all. That is exactly why they sentenced her to the max sentence, because she was so smug about lying to their faces.

funydjane · 01-13-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

First of all, Host... that was a bit of unrelated nonsense. Please take your grindstone elsewhere.

Second, sending a woman to prison is not more or less serious than sending a man. To suggest otherwise is pretty sexist. Crime is crime. To the crime be prepared to do the time.

+1

host · 01-13-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

So what does Scooter and GW have to do with Marion Jones going to jail?
Marion Jones should get a presidential pardon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

Well, the crime he was going to jail for was essentially the same as hers - lying under oath. And if I understand it properly, her lying was about actions that may have affected national prestige, but surely didn't affect national security or ruin any careers other than her own.

Fixed that for ya.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

First of all, Host... that was a bit of unrelated nonsense. Please take your grindstone elsewhere.

Second, sending a woman to prison is not more or less serious than sending a man. To suggest otherwise is pretty sexist. Crime is crime. To the crime be prepared to do the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

host, I always get a chuckle when you try to derail a thread as only you can do. Nice try, though.

SF - I certainly appreciate the sentiment of your statement. In a perfect world, it makes sense. Unfortunately, if it were to come to pass, it would be abused in this world.

Note the date of my post, and the date of this NY Times reporting. I guess the NY Times reporter followed my reaction.

I have now supported my the legitimacy of comparing justice for Marrion Jones with 'justice" for the president's perjurer.

I would appreciate it if posters who logged what amount to "drive-by sinped) criticism, seemingly more aimed at me, and my "rep" than as rebuttals of what I actually posted, would drive back around to this thread, pull into a space, shut of the motor, or at least put the shift selector in the "P" position, and actually post an opinion about what I posted, instead of a "quickie", about me. Fair enough?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/sp...ef=todayspaper
Blinded and Broken by Ambition

By HARVEY ARATON
Published: January 12, 2008

White Plains
... When she finally admitted to government investigators that she had used performance-enhancing drugs before and after her five-medal haul at the 2000 Summer Olympics, Jones told them she believed she had been using flaxseed oil given to her by her former coach, Trevor Graham. The judge said he found it “a very difficult thing to believe” that Jones, as a world-class athlete, would not have recognized the dramatic effects on her body and her results as they occurred.

“I am troubled, quite frankly, by that statement,” Karas said, and who objectively could blame him? He soon after announced the six-month sentence based on Jones’s guilty plea to two counts of perjury, to be followed by two years of probation, with an appropriate mix of sadness and resolve.

Yes, he might have accepted the assertion by one of Jones’s attorneys, F. Hill Allen, that Jones had made a courageous, legacy-unraveling admission, had already been “pilloried, battered and dragged through the public square.” <h2>No, the sanctimonious call for jail time doesn’t come easily when the government can so blithely spring one of its own (see President Bush’s commuting of Scooter Libby’s 30-month sentence for four counts of perjury in the Valerie Plame case).</h2>

•

But this was Karas’s court, his show, his admitted decision to speak out on the performance-enhancement scourge. By making an example of Jones, he was sending a message to other athletes who would fail to distinguish a federal investigation from a sportswriters’ inquiry. The criminal penalties for perjury, Karas ominously noted before sending Jones into the arms of her husband, the sprinter Obadele Thompson, have nothing to do with the forfeiture of medals and records.

Watching Thompson console Jones, you wondered how a poised, college-educated woman could have failed to comprehend the difference between public spin and the risk of legal self-destruction. Does transcendent stardom blind these people to how far there is to fall?

Jones stonewalled for so long, held tight to her medals, dragged relay partners into her muddle. On some level, she had to know all along that there were people who could testify against her. Even as his attorneys forcefully argue for Roger Clemens, it would be naïve to think they weren’t watching closely Friday, wondering if Clemens is in the same state of denial as Jones (and, possibly, Barry Bonds).

“Yes, I’ve made mistakes by lying,” Jones told the judge. “And I’ve admitted to these mistakes much later than I should have.”

Long before she stepped into Karas’s courtroom, she tried to save herself in that unpredictable and capricious place we call the court of public opinion. The medals were certainly at stake, as was, she believed, her ability to continue earning based on what she had achieved.

But laws do not govern public opinion, nor is hard evidence required in that court to convict, as the tight-lipped Mark McGwire well knows. Conversely, the public also reserves the right to grant amnesty whenever it is sufficiently moved to. What, for example, did Kobe Bryant do to repair his once-devastated reputation besides score 81 points in a single game?....

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/sp...rssnyt&emc=rss
Sentence for Jones Could Be Longer

By JULIET MACUR
Published: January 5, 2008

Despite a plea to the judge for a light sentence, the former Olympic track star Marion Jones may be facing more prison time than she expected for lying about her steroid use and involvement in a check-fraud scheme.

United States District Judge Kenneth M. Karas filed an order Thursday in White Plains asking the prosecution and Jones’s defense team to explain why Jones should not be given two consecutive sentences for her two counts of providing false statements to federal agents. He wrote that consecutive sentences may be possible if they occurred in “separate investigations of unrelated criminal conduct in different jurisdictions.”

Karas said he was not bound by the plea agreement in which prosecutors suggested a maximum of six months in prison for Jones, who is 32 and has two children.

He also said he was not bound by sentencing guidelines.....

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A9679C8B63
Metro Briefing | New York: Manhattan: Prosecutor Named To Terror Unit

By BENJAMIN WEISER (NYT) (COMPILED BY ANTHONY RAMIREZ)
Published: November 2, 2001

A veteran prosecutor in the United States attorney's office in Manhattan has been appointed co-chief of the office's unit specializing in terrorism cases. The prosecutor, Kenneth M. Karas, replaces Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who was confirmed last week as United States attorney in Chicago. David N. Kelley continues as the other co-chief of the unit. Mr. Karas, 37, joined the prosecutor's office in 1992 and has been assisting in the investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. Earlier this year, he helped try four men charged with conspiring with Osama bin Laden in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies. Benjamin Weiser (NYT)

In 2004, GW Bush appointed Kenneth Karas to the federal bench. Patrick J. Fitzgerald seems a brighter, more capable choice for the appointment to the bench that was awarded to Karas.

You don't see hypocrisy, you aren't disgusted by the lack of equal justice, under the law....but you bothered to drive-by to log here, that "host" is posting OT, in your opinions, but, in a one sentence, toss the rolled up newspaper out the window and onto the porch kinda delivery, you really couldn't say why, host was the problem with the discussion here.

He just was....right?

Charlatan · 01-13-2008, 04:25 PM

Host this is one of the biggest problems with your posting... it might have been relevant to the discussion but ultimately you did not make your point, you left it up to the reader to read a posted article and then hoped that that reader would come the same conclusion as you. It is lazy posting and people don't like it.

host · 01-13-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

First of all, Host... that was a bit of unrelated nonsense. Please take your grindstone elsewhere.

Second, sending a woman to prison is not more or less serious than sending a man. To suggest otherwise is pretty sexist. Crime is crime. To the crime be prepared to do the time.

This is how you described my post and my "grindstone". It turns out my post was not "unrelated nonsense", and, just as you did in the post above, you attempted to make the earlier post about me, instead of about my point, which was obvious enough for other posters who mentioned it....

Compared to a "drive-by", one or two "liner", do you really feel comfortable describing my posting style as "lazy"? It seems an unfair, and an inaccurate description.

Ustwo · 01-13-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

This is how you described my post and my "grindstone". It turns out my post was not "unrelated nonsense", and, just as you did in the post above, you attempted to make the earlier post about me, instead of about my point, which was obvious enough for other posters who mentioned it....

Allow me....

Because Jones represented our Country so well by cheating in the 2000 Olympics I hope our President will step up like his predecessor did with Marc Rich.

Quote:

In 1983 Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani, on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. They were indicted while they were in Switzerland. The pair failed to return to the U.S. following the indictment, and were on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.

On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought. Rich had also made substantial donations to Israeli charitable foundations. Clinton explained his decision by noting that similar situations were settled in civil, not criminal court, and cited clemency pleas from Israeli government officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate. She stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by James Comey. Though Comey was critical of Clinton's pardons, he could not find any grounds on which to indict him.

During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages [3]. In his letter to the New York Times, Bill Clinton explained why he pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center concluded that no crime was committed, and that the companies' tax reporting position was reasonable [4]. In the same letter Clinton listed Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported Rich's pardon. His pardon was curiously supported also by the king of Spain, Juan Carlos I.

Quote:

President Clinton's eleventh-hour pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich has sparked a firestorm of controversy, launching investigations in both houses of Congress and igniting fierce protest from both Democrats and Republicans. The U.S. House and Senate have issued a rash of subpoenas calling for witnesses as well as financial records, as the House Government Reform Committee continued its hearings and the Senate Judiciary Committee geared up for its own proceedings.

Thursday, the controversy took another step forward — no, we're not at impeachment yet, but it's been suggested — when federal prosecutors in New York officially opened a criminal investigation into whether Rich did indeed buy his pardon with his ex-wife Denise's pointed largesse to the First Couple and the Democratic party.

That prompted Dan Burton, chairman and lead Clinton-hunter on the House Government Affairs Committee's ongoing investigation into the matter, to put on hold his request to the Justice Department to give Denise Rich immunity in exchange for her testimony. Rich has already declined to testify, citing her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

As with almost everything relating to the former president, the Marc Rich pardon case raises a lot of questions. Some answers will surface only after all the Capitol Hill witnesses are heard and the U.S. Attorney's office does its thing. Others, happily, we can answer here and now.

First of all, what does it mean to be "pardoned" by the President?

In legal terms, a pardon in an exemption from punishment for a criminal conviction. Presidential pardons are granted unilaterally and cannot be reversed.

So what's the point of all these hearings?

Some are calling the inquiries a field day for die-hard Clinton-haters. But most see this as a source of bipartisan outrage. Republicans and Democrats alike were dumbstruck by the Rich pardon. The federal prosecutors who indicted Rich are especially livid, particularly because, by definition, Rich appears to be ineligible for a pardon: He never took responsibility for his actions or served any sentence.

The congressional panels were called to investigate the path to Rich's pardon — which, as various documents seem to indicate, did not follow usual channels. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. pardon attorney Roger Adams says when the White House sent over Rich's name for pardon consideration — only a few hours before the President was due to leave office — there was never any mention of Rich being a fugitive. There is also suspicion that donations made to Clinton campaigns and to the Clinton presidential library by Rich's ex-wife, Denise, could be a quid pro quo for the pardon.

There are other questions looming: Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked whether Clinton even had time to sign all of the paperwork required to seal Rich's pardon before he left office — raising the possibility that the pardon may not be valid. Specter has also floated the idea of a constitutional amendment giving congressional oversight to presidential pardons.

Will Clinton be brought in to testify about the pardon?

It doesn't look like it. Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has indicated he's interested in having Clinton appear to "clear the air," but says he doesn't believe the former president should be forced to testify.

How does President Bush feel about the Rich pardon inquiries?

Bush has been quoted as saying he thinks "it's time to move on," and by all accounts has little interest in pursuing any investigation that keeps his predecessor in the national spotlight.

What was Marc Rich's alleged crime?

In 1983, Rich was indicted in federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes. He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis.

So does the pardon mean that if Rich leaves Switzerland (where he's been living for 17 years and seems quite happy to stay) and comes back to the U.S., that he won't face any legal proceedings at all?

Possibly. He's free of any criminal charges in connection with the case, but Rich can still be charged in civil court on, say, tax evasion charges. In fact, when Clinton finally signed off on Rich's pardon, the President stipulated that Rich waive the statute of limitations normally placed on as yet unspecified civil charges.

Rich has been living in Switzerland for almost 20 years now. Is he still a U.S. citizen?

That's one of the major questions connected with this case. And the answer, legally, anyway, appears to be yes. While Rich's lawyers can't seem to decide if their client is a citizen — sometimes he is, sometimes he isn't — and Rich himself reportedly considers himself a citizen of Israel and Spain, a federal appeals court ruled in 1991 that Rich had not actively renounced his U.S. citizenship, and therefore he was subject to U.S. law.

Why does his citizenship matter?

If Rich is, in fact, still a U.S. citizen, he's liable for taxes, no matter where he lives. So the IRS wants to know if Rich filed taxes for 17 years he spent abroad — and the congressional panel is investigating whether Rich's money made it back to Bill and Hillary Clinton; non-citizens are not permitted to make political contributions.

What does Denise Rich have to do with all this?

Marc Rich's socialite ex-wife has donated an estimated $1 million to Democratic causes, including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's successful Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library fund. She also lobbied heavily for Marc's pardon. Investigators want to know if Denise's contributions led to a direct quid pro quo exchange for her ex-husband's pardon. Clinton has denied any connection, saying he relied solely on the information provided by Jack Quinn (former White House counsel and Rich's current lawyer) when he was weighing the pardon request.

What happens to Denise Rich now?

Last week, when she was called to testify before the congressional panel, she took the Fifth (the amendment to the Constitution that allows potential witnesses to decline testimony out of fear that they might incriminate themselves). Now the same House panel wants to offer Rich immunity in order to discuss her ex-husband's case. House Republicans want approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft before granting immunity. Ashcroft is currently "considering" the request.

What about Washington Democratic fund-raiser and socialite Beth Dozoretz, whose name has come up in connection with the case?

Beth Dozoretz, fund-raiser and FOB, was, according to TIME, skiing when she heard that Clinton was "impressed" by Rich's case for a pardon. Dozoretz eagerly told skiing partner Denise Rich about the development, who called Marc Rich's supporters in Israel, then Washington. Dozoretz is also a big contributor to the Clinton presidential library fund. As in Denise Rich's case, congressional investigators want to know if there's a trail leading straight from Dozoretz's bountiful checkbook to Clinton's signature on Marc Rich's pardon.

Quote:

Classification and Range Carl Linnaeus devised the classification system in zoology that we use today. In this system, humans and the three categories of great apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas) all belong to the order Primates. Gorillas, the largest of the great apes, are divided into three subspecies: (1) western lowland gorillas (Gorillas gorilla gorilla), (2) eastern lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla graueri), and (3) mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei). The three gorilla subspecies are very similar and show only minor differences in size, build, and coloring. The approximate ranges where each of the subspecies lives are shown on the map of Central Africa.

The eastern and western groups of gorillas are widely separated in location, but so similar in form that they must have come from a single parent population in the not too distant past. Since gorillas will not cross large rivers, such as the Zaire and Ubangi, the eminent gorilla specialist George Schaller suggested that the parent population probably lived in the area shown on the map. Today, most of this hypothetical range is too dry and open to be a suitable gorilla habitat, but during cooler and rainier conditions that existed 5000-7000 years ago, the area would have been covered by a rainforest where the gorillas could have lived.

Population The world's gorilla population is relatively small and still declining. All three gorilla subspecies are listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and by the Convention on International Trade for Endangered Species. There are currently about 50,000 western lowland gorillas living in the wild in West Central Africa. This gorilla is also the type most often seen in zoos. The eastern lowland gorilla population has declined significantly in recent decades. An estimated 5,000-15,000 lived in the eastern Congolese rainforest around 1960. Today only about 2,500 remain in the wild, and only a few dozen live in the world's zoos. The mountain gorillas are the rarest of all and are on the verge of extinction. Only about 600 of these magnificent animals are left in the wild, about 320 in the Virunga Mountains and another 300 in the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda. None are found in captivity.

The population of mountain gorillas in the Virunga Mountains has been watched closely for the last half-century and shows the effects of human interaction, both good and bad. George Schaller estimated that about 450 mountain gorillas lived in the Virungas in 1960. Hunting and poaching reduced their numbers to about 250 by 1981, when the protection efforts of the late Dian Fossey and others brought the decline to a halt. Today about 320 mountain gorillas inhabit the Virungas, but their long-term survival continues to be threatened by natural changes and disasters, hunters and poachers, and the chronic political instability that swirls around the edge of their forest home.

Life Cycle of the Mountain Gorillas Newborn gorillas are small, covered with black hair, and weigh about 2.3 kg (5 lbs). They must be cared for at all times. By age two they are able to reach and chew on vines and branches. They develop about twice as fast as human babies.

Image of a young female gorilla and her baby. This image links to a more detailed image.Young male and female gorillas are classed as juvenile between the ages of about three and six. During this stage, both sexes have thick black hair and black skin. Juveniles of both sexes increase in size and weight at similar rates for the first six years. At age six they are about 1.2 m (4 ft) tall and weigh about 68 kg (150 lbs). Photo: Courtesy of the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund

Females mature at about age six and cease to grow taller, although they continue to gain weight slowly until they reach weights of 113-136 kg (250-300 lbs) at ages of ten to eleven years. Males continue to grow both in size and weight past the age of six; they do not reach maturity until they are about ten years old. Between the ages of about six and ten years, males retain the uniformly black hair color of their youth and are called blackbacks.

Image of some male gorillas.When male mountain gorillas reach maturity, they develop a patch of grayish or silver-colored hair on their backs. Consequently, mature males are called silverbacks. Males cease to grow in size or weight after maturity, but at typical heights of 1.5-1.8 m (5-6 ft) and weights of 204-227 kg (450-500 lbs), they are impressively large animals. The silverbacks' large size and distinctive coloring make them very easy to recognize in the wild. Photo: Courtesy of the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund

The maximum life span of mountain gorillas in the wild is difficult to estimate. The longest-lived gorillas in captivity reached ages of thirty to thirty-five years. No gorilla has been seen in the wild that looked as aged as the oldest captive gorillas, so the life span in the wild is probably somewhat less, perhaps twenty-five to thirty years.

Image of an upset gorilla.The potential for population growth for undisturbed mountain gorillas is comparable to that for human beings. The gestation period is about nine months. Gorilla mothers with an infant may not have another for up to four years. There is also no apparent breeding season, since births of baby gorillas occur throughout the year. However, due to mishaps and disease, many baby gorillas die in the first year of life, and nearly half of all gorillas die before reaching adulthood.

Quote:

MARC RICH: TREASON IS THE REASON
The Marc Rich Pardon was a payoff – but to whom?

Everybody's talking about the Marc Rich pardon, but in all the newsprint (and bandwidth) devoted to this story the spin is that this is just the crowning example of Clinton's utter depravity: it's all supposed to be about money. But is it? Did the President of these United States, in his final hours in the White House, really pardon one of the top ten on Interpol's list of most wanted criminals – and set himself up for a storm of protest and opprobrium – all for a measly $450,000 contribution to his presidential library?
THE SHORT END

This is a question that seems to answer itself. Even if you add in the $1 million-plus given by Marc's ex-wife, Denise Rich, to the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Rodham Clinton's successful campaign for a Senate seat, it seems obvious that, in this supposed deal, the usually crafty Clinton somehow got the short end of the stick. Our ex-President is facing a veritable storm of criticism, some of the harshest coming from members of his own party, and even his biggest defenders are taken aback: they always knew that he was reckless and vulgar, but the sheer scale of this latest example of Bill Clinton's moral turpitude has disgusted even them. They didn't mind when the Lincoln bedroom was being rented out like a Motel 6, but selling presidential pardons to the highest bidder? It didn't go over very well, to say the least: why, even Joe Conason, who took Sidney Blumenthal's place as Clinton's journalistic champion when the latter went on the White House payroll, hung his head in reflected shame at the actions of the man he has so consistently defended:

"The Rich pardon will never reflect well on the former president. Exercising an extraordinary power that ought to be reserved for the repentant and rehabilitated, he rushed to a bad judgment that benefited a very bad man. Yet the true motives behind that decision may be far less damning than whatever Clinton's most demented detractors want us to believe."
A LOBBY TO DIE FOR

Aha! And what, pray tell, were his "true motives"? According to Conason, it wasn't for the love of money, but for the love of Israel: Clinton gave in to pressure from Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Shabtai Shavit the former chief of the Mossad intelligence service, not to mention the Speaker of the Israeli Knesset and a long list of Israeli dignitaries. A series of emails between various members of Rich's legal team, published in Salon, details the concerted campaign to mobilize Israeli support, while Zev Chafets, writing in the New York Daily News, snorts in disgust at the well-organized pressure on behalf of the Rich pardon from Israel's friends in the US, including Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, and Eli Wiesel – who now denies it. Conason writes that "it is almost certain that those entreaties swayed him more than the largesse of Rich's ex-wife Denise, who donated more than $1 million to Democrats over the last decade."
DAMN YOU

Yes, Joe, but just how much "less damning" is this explanation than the charge of selling out for filthy lucre? Indeed, such a motive seems far more damning and dangerous, for what we are talking about is a President's circumvention of American justice at the behest of a foreign power. We all knew Clinton was a sleazeball: that, after all, was a key factor in his popularity among certain sectors of the population. It was part of his charm. Why the popular revulsion at this latest revelation? A sleazeball they could handle. Sullying the Oval Office with his furtive trysts was one thing, but selling out American justice to satisfy demands emanating from beyond our borders? That's a different story – and it's the real story of the Marc Rich Affair.
NOT SO SECRET AGENT

Barak called Clinton twice, just before the announcement of the President's pardons, and interceded on Rich's behalf: following a scenario spelled out in the Rich legal team's memos, Barak in effect said he'd settle for Rich in lieu of a pardon for convicted spy Jonathan Pollard. Wiesel, on the other hand, now claims that, while he was solicited to appeal to Clinton to grant the pardon, he was determined to hold out for Pollard. Why would the Israelis go all out for Rich? The story is that he has performed certain "services" for the Israeli government, and they are "grateful" for his "unselfish" and even noble actions, which are vaguely connected to the alleged "rescue" of Israelis from Arab clutches and other good deeds. But now it is coming to light that the Rich Foundation, set up by Marc Rich to launder his ill-gotten fortune, is the Israeli government. Avner Azulay, executive director of the Rich Foundation, is a former Mossad agent, according to a very interesting article in the San Jose Mercury News. So are the bodyguards who, since 1983, have been protecting their boss from being jailed on charges of racketeering, fraud, etc. The piece cites Vincent Cannistraro, a former spook and a Middle East expert, who said the Mossad used Rich as a "conduit for financial transfers" and to pass messages to Iran when necessary. He is a very wealthy man, so he is not on the payroll per se. He was a very close friend of the Israeli government and has been cooperating with Israeli intelligence since the early 1980s."
WHO IS MARC RICH?

But it would be wrong to simply characterize Rich as an Israeli pawn, for he is a power to be reckoned with in his own right: the case could be made – and, indeed, should be made by Israel's true friends – that it is the other way around: that the Israeli government was the pawn in Rich's game. As Craig Copetas put it in a 1990 magazine article in Regardies':

"To get a sense of how deep Rich's tentacles may reach into the U.S. government, it's necessary to recap the rise of an obscure New York University dropout whose genius catapulted him to the top of Philipp Brothers, the most powerful commodities trading company in the world, where he single-handedly created what's now called the spot oil market. After he left Philipp Brothers (now Phibro-Salomon), Rich founded an oil company and engineered its growth into a multibillion-dollar trading firm. Then he molded his holdings into an international financial conglomerate that gave him access to capital from the four corners of the earth. He bought real estate, refineries, film companies, movie studios, mines, oil wells, politicians, tanker fleets, Picassos, grain silos, weapons, and, perhaps to satisfy his thirst, a Coca-Cola distributor. Rich mastered the arcane game of buying and selling the earth's crust. The business gave him deep – hell, bottomless – pockets, but information was his true currency, and with it he bought power. Real power. No one but Rich has ever fully harnessed and directed the energy that's created when money and power collide."
HOW MARC RICH LOOTED RUSSIA

Rod Dreher, in the New York Daily News, recounts the story of how Rich looted Russia in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse, citing Paul Klebnikov, a Russia expert and senior editor of Forbes magazine. Klebnikov is the author of Godfather of the Kremlin, a book that painstakingly documents how Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky and his cronies plundered Russia under the rubric of a phony "privatization" program. Rich, based in Switzerland, was in a perfect position to act as a key link in an international scheme to strip Russia of its assets and sock away the profits in secretive Swiss banks. As a dealer in oil, aluminum, zinc, and other commodities, Rich moved in with amazing speed and alacrity to strike deals with local party bosses who wanted to spirit their stolen wealth out of the country. "He'd strike a deal with the local party boss, or the director of a state-owned company," explains Klebnikov, "he'd say, 'OK, you will sell me the [commodity] at 5 to 10 percent of the world market price. And in return, I will deposit some of the profit I make by reselling it 10 times higher on the world market, and put the kickback in a Swiss bank account.'" Rich "made a complete mint off of Russia," says Klebnikov. "Marc Rich ended up being a mentor to all these young kids who came out of the Communist Party establishment, and who made billions off these schemes themselves." Dreher cites an article in The National Interest reporting that the KGB had been spiriting assets out of the country since the early eighties – just about the time Rich went on the lam – through front companies: "The program evolved into . . . avenues for squirreling away funds for the safe retirement or political comeback of embattled communist leaders."
LETTER FROM THE MOSSAD

In a letter to Clinton dated Nov. 28, 2000, ex-Israeli intelligence chief Shavit said the Mossad had "requested [Rich's] assistance in looking for MIAs and help in the rescue and evacuation of Jews from enemy countries. Mr. Rich always agreed and used his extensive network of contacts in these countries to produce results sometimes beyond the expected. Israel and the Jewish people are grateful for these unselfish actions which sometimes had the potential of jeopardizing his own personal interests and business relations in these countries." Shavit does not identify these "enemy countries," although the implication is clear that we are talking about Arab countries, perhaps Iran, where Rich has connections due to his oil interests, but it could just as easily be any place where Jews face danger – and Russia could very well fit that particular bill. Acting on behalf of the Israeli government's perceived self-interest, Rich's alliance with the ex-Commie kleptocrats makes perfect sense: as a political buffer against the alleged resurgence of Russian anti-Semitism, and a facilitator of Russian Jewish emigration to Israel, the remnants of the old Soviet party machine would be valuable allies.
A MANY-TENTACLED CREATURE

Rich's tentacles are everywhere: his Glencore corporation owns a controlling stake in the state-controlled Kazakhstan Zinc (KazZinc), and is the single largest investor in Montenegro, where Glencore enjoys the special favor of the gangsterish President Djukanovic: this cozy relationship has aroused the charge of "crony capitalism," and it does indeed seem like a repeat of his tactics in the Ukraine. Under the protection of NATO troops in Bosnia, Glencore virtually controls the aluminum franchise and word is out that he has his eye on Kosovo, where UNMIK is busy giving away the store. And while the Israelis have taken the lead as Rich's biggest advocates, the fugitive financier has other powerful allies: according to Copetas, they include "Henry Kissinger, lawyer Leonard Garment, [former] deputy secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger, public relations gurus Harold Burson, Robert Gray, and Frank Mankiewicz, opera superstar Placido Domingo, and a boxcar full of European princes, American politicians, OPEC sheiks, and Fortune 500 bosses. But they can't lift the criminal counts that are suspended over his head." Clinton could, and did – with more than a little help from the Republicans, who, after eight years of trying to ambush Bill Clinton, are now covering for him.
TIME TO MOVE ON?

President Bush, asked if he thought the investigation into Rich's pardon should continue, burbled that it was "time to move on." The Republicans are as wary of opening this can of worms as any die-hard Clintonista. The recent House hearings conducted by Dan Burton completely ignored the Israeli angle, while the Senate hearings made it clear, as Salon noted, that Clinton and Rich have reason to be optimistic: Bush's opposition put a definite damper on the proceedings. The continuing cover-up of the Marc Rich outrage, as Arianna Huffington points out, is a bipartisan affair. While much is made of Jack Quinn, the supposed Svengali who hypnotized Clinton into pardoning his client against the advice of the White House legal staff, little is said about Lewis "Scooter" Libby, also one of Rich's legal hired hands, who recruited Quinn to Rich's cause – and then segued into position as Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Then there's David Bossie, Rep. Dan Burton's chief investigator and a veteran of the impeachment hearings, who was hired by Quinn to brief him for his appearance before a House investigating committee this week – one that just happened to be chaired by Rep. Burton. What a coincidence! But here, let Arianna tell it:

"Working alongside Bossie are two other conservative Republicans – and longtime fellow Clinton-bashers – Joe diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing. It feels like I'm hallucinating every time I see diGenova on TV defending Quinn and, in effect, Clinton and his pardon. It takes weeks of gut-wrenching tribal councils before the two tribes on 'Survivor' merge into a single team. In Washington, it just takes a client with an unlimited bank account."
THE TRIBES OF CAPITOL HILL

Arianna's facts are interesting, but her conclusions are, as usual, a little off. While money greases the wheels of this corrupt machine, she overlooks what seems to be the main factor in the pardon of Marc Rich, and that is the extraordinary lobbying effort by the Israeli government. The two tribes who rule Capitol Hill merge into a single team when it comes to satisfying what everyone acknowledges is among the most powerful lobbies in Washington. What did the Clintons get in return? Not just money, although there was some of that, but far more important: continued political support, and not only from American friends of Israel. What did the Republicans get in exchange for collaborating in the cover-up? Brownie points with Ariel Sharon and the incoming Israeli government. Which raises an interesting point.
PARDON FOR PEACE?

Joe Conason makes the case that it was a "pardon for peace" in the Middle East, but where oh where is the peace? The much-touted "concessions" that the pardon was supposed to have garnered from the Israelis never materialized. Furthermore, it was clear, as Barak made his last call to Clinton on Rich's behalf, that Sharon would sweep away the Labor government, so Barak was hardly in any position to make such a deal. Clinton knew, at that point, that there was no chance or basis for a peace agreement, and that he would leave it to Bush to cash in his chips for whatever they are worth. There is much about this affair that we don't know, but of one thing we can be absolutely certain: those chips were worth a lot more than Denise Rich's chump change.
INTERNATIONAL MAN

Marc Rich is the New Man of the new millennium, no ordinary person but a transnational entity – it was not for nothing that Copetas titled his piece "The Republic of Marc Rich." He reminds me of George Soros – of whom Strobe Talbott remarked that, in formulating foreign policy, the US always consulted with its allies "and with George Soros." Like Soros, with whom he is reputed to have business dealings, Rich's vast international holdings have made him a state unto himself, albeit one without borders – just tentacles, reaching into the Russian government, the US government, and a lot of governments in between. Marc Rich – criminal, racketeer, spy – perfectly captures the spirit of the age: he is the brave New Man of the New World Order, the international man without a country who surrenders his American citizenship at the drop of a hat and whose loyalties, in any case, lie elsewhere.
ANTI-SEMITISM – THE CONSERVATISM OF FOOLS

No doubt the usual motley crew of anti-Semites will haul out all this as "evidence" of a World Zionist Conspiracy to overthrow human civilization and usher in the coming of the Anti-Christ – or something to that effect. To those people I say: get help. The Israeli connection is incidental, not central, except in the flamboyant way it is being bandied about. It hardly seems useful to the Israeli government to be lobbying so openly for Rich's release, but it is not for me to determine what is or is not in Israel's national self-interest. I'll leave that up to the New York Post to decide.
EXEMPLAR OF THE NEW AGE

The real villains are the individuals involved, both representative of the Zeitgeist in two of its aspects. Just as Clinton embodied the bread-and-media-circuses vulgarity of a paganized and decadent political culture, so the crook he pardoned is the exemplar of a new elite now rising on a world scale, the offspring not of any particular race or nation but a new kind of creature altogether. One born of the marriage of money and power: the Money Power, which is beyond all ethnicity and all nations, a law unto itself. It is the system of global state capitalism, culminating in the creation of a world run by giant corporate cartels acting by and through national governments – and, increasingly, international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and all the various transnational institutions that have grown up over the years, including NATO, the EU, the UN, and all the other acronymic enemies of national sovereignty. This is the murky milieu in which the New Man evolves and flourishes: the dank and stagnant waters of the New World Order.

highthief · 01-13-2008, 05:59 PM

Can we get back on the fucking topic and just ban the next person who mentions politics?

Where is the moderator when you need him?

Tophat665 · 01-13-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Can we get back on the fucking topic and just ban the next person who mentions politics?

Where is the moderator when you need him?

HT, you're point is taken to a degree, but right here, this issue of doping, is one of the two or three places politics and sports are indistinguishable.

Elphaba · 01-13-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Host this is one of the biggest problems with your posting... it might have been relevant to the discussion but ultimately you did not make your point, you left it up to the reader to read a posted article and then hoped that that reader would come the same conclusion as you. It is lazy posting and people don't like it.

Charlatan, is it fair to correct your statement to read *some* people don't like it?

Host made his point to anyone that chose to read his links, and that includes me. I easily understood the analogy and intended sarcasm, and saw a bit of political irony of the Jon Stewart kind. Is it a case of lazy posting, or *people* choosing to be lazy readers?

highthief · 01-14-2008, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

HT, you're point is taken to a degree, but right here, this issue of doping, is one of the two or three places politics and sports are indistinguishable.

I understand what you are saying but disagree - sports, for the most part, is sports (yeah, when it comes to who gets Olympic contracts and whatnot there's a lot of politics involved), but for most part, when a Marion Jones gets busted, that's all it is: Another dumb, cheating, lying, multi-millionaire athlete who has screwed up.

Tophat665 · 01-14-2008, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I understand what you are saying but disagree - sports, for the most part, is sports (yeah, when it comes to who gets Olympic contracts and whatnot there's a lot of politics involved), but for most part, when a Marion Jones gets busted, that's all it is: Another dumb, cheating, lying, multi-millionaire athlete who has screwed up.

When it intersects the justice system, it becomes politics. When shades of class warfare tint the discussion it becomes politics.

Heck, the Sports aspect of this ended when they put out the torch, and she went from being an athlete to some lanky chick with more self confidence than sense.

highthief · 01-14-2008, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

When it intersects the justice system, it becomes politics. When shades of class warfare tint the discussion it becomes politics.

Heck, the Sports aspect of this ended when they put out the torch, and she went from being an athlete to some lanky chick with more self confidence than sense.

I don't see it that way - the justice system and the legislative bodies are meant to be seperate. I understand in the US this is not strictly true, as your judges are elected, but in this instance, particularly, it's about a criminal athlete, and little more.

She's not going to jail because she's black, or because she's a woman, or because she voted for the other guy.

Tophat665 · 01-14-2008, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I don't see it that way - the justice system and the legislative bodies are meant to be seperate. I understand in the US this is not strictly true, as your judges are elected, but in this instance, particularly, it's about a criminal athlete, and little more.

She's not going to jail because she's black, or because she's a woman, or because she voted for the other guy.

The Justice System is a branch of government, all government is a matter of politics, and the judges on the federal bench are appointed, not elected.

Whether doping should or should not be legal and what the punishment for it should be, and whether that should apply differently to men and women, mothers and not, this is a legislative matter - politics.

highthief · 01-14-2008, 07:49 AM

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Tophat665 · 01-14-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Agreed!

Strange Famous · 01-14-2008, 10:37 AM

The prosecution did not seek a prison term in any case.

The judge acted out of nothing but mysogony, brutality, and the desire of the cheap and tawdry rewards of fame.

If the prosecution does not ask for jail time, how can the judge pass this sentence? Everyone involve recognised that she had been punished enough - except for this judge who is so desperate to see his name in headlines that he will attempt to destroy the life of this woman to do it.

The cheque fraud is a separate issue in any case.

This sentence is for lying about taking steroids. It is lunatic to jail someone for this.

EVERY sports star should refuse to ever answer a question in any kind of congressional court of this nature again, in defence of Marion Jones.

I would refuse to attend their session alltogether, and advise them that they would need to arrest me and bring me to trial for a criminal offence before I would speak to their court. If every athlete did the same, this kind of outrage couldnt happen.

Ustwo · 01-14-2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

The prosecution did not seek a prison term in any case.

The judge acted out of nothing but mysogony, brutality, and the desire of the cheap and tawdry rewards of fame.

If the prosecution does not ask for jail time, how can the judge pass this sentence? Everyone involve recognised that she had been punished enough - except for this judge who is so desperate to see his name in headlines that he will attempt to destroy the life of this woman to do it.

The cheque fraud is a separate issue in any case.

This sentence is for lying about taking steroids. It is lunatic to jail someone for this.

EVERY sports star should refuse to ever answer a question in any kind of congressional court of this nature again, in defence of Marion Jones.

I would refuse to attend their session alltogether, and advise them that they would need to arrest me and bring me to trial for a criminal offence before I would speak to their court. If every athlete did the same, this kind of outrage couldnt happen.

Thats a rather strong statement.

Perjury is a serious crime and to do so in a criminal investigation is not a wise move. She did and now shes paying for it.

Whats interesting is that if the judge let her off, odds are there would be people talking about how celebrities and women get off easy.

Leto · 01-14-2008, 12:57 PM

I would like to know who else was doping. Are we going to see confessions from Micheal Johnson and *gasp* Carl Lewis now? Maybe not, they would be too afraid of the obvious repercussions.

QuasiMondo · 01-14-2008, 01:02 PM

It's only six months. Less time than what Martha Stewart got when she purjured herself in the ImClone insider trading scandal. Less time than what Li'l Kim got when she purjured herself over her involvement in a shooting outside of a radio station.

We'll talk injustice and mysogyny and racial bias or political affiliation and preferential treatment for the rich and famous when she's getting 5-10 for this.

The_Jazz · 01-14-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto

I would like to know who else was doping. Are we going to see confessions from Micheal Johnson and *gasp* Carl Lewis now? Maybe not, they would be too afraid of the obvious repercussions.

The amazing confession from Carl Lewis won't be that he was doping - he was, everyone knew it, and he was smart enought to use state-of-the-art drugs that didn't have tests at the time - but that he's gay. THAT will shock the world and is just as true as the drug issue.

Ben Johnson, by the way, got caught using a drug that had, at the time of his "incident", a test available for 10+ years. Really, in the 80's and 90's it was the stupid sprinters that got caught.

And host, as a close follower of track and field, I didn't "drive-by" your post. I actually read it. You just chose to respond take one sentence in the NYT article and post about it. I'll discuss politics in the appropriate place, but don't try to derail one of the few places that I actually get to talk about track here. All you "proved" was that you and the reporter want to grind the same axe.

host · 01-15-2008, 01:35 AM

The_jazz, I sincerely cannot grasp why you think the crux of this thread is not political, or that you're comments about me, in either of your posts, are appropriate or accurate:

Background:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/sp...rssnyt&emc=rss
Sentence for Jones Could Be Longer

By JULIET MACUR
Published: January 5, 2008

Despite a plea to the judge for a light sentence, the former Olympic track star Marion Jones may be facing more prison time than she expected for lying about her steroid use and involvement in a check-fraud scheme.

United States District Judge Kenneth M. Karas filed an order Thursday in White Plains asking the prosecution and Jones’s defense team to explain why Jones should not be given two consecutive sentences for her two counts of providing false statements to federal agents. He wrote that consecutive sentences may be possible if they occurred in “separate investigations of unrelated criminal conduct in different jurisdictions.”

Karas said he was not bound by the plea agreement in which prosecutors suggested a maximum of six months in prison for Jones, who is 32 and has two children.

He also said he was not bound by sentencing guidelines.....

Quote:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whi...-jones-se.html
January 12, 2008
Marion Jones Sentenced to Six Months

Former Olympic gold medalist Marion Jones received a six-month prison sentence from U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas for her guilty plea to two counts of making false statements, the maximum recommended term under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for the offenses. Jones was interviewed by federal agents in 2003 and again in 2006, the first time about the Balco (Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative) steroids operation and the second time about a check-kiting scheme involving her former boyfriend, sprinter Tim Montgomery. In the Balco case, she denied ever receiving steroids and even filed a defamation suit against Victor Conte, the founder of Balco, for his statements about her use of performance-enhancing drugs; that civil case was eventually dropped, for obvious reasons.

The Sentencing Guidelines range was 0-6 months, and I speculated earlier (here) that she might receive probation or home confinement. The prosecutors did not recommend any particular sentence other than staying within the Guidelines recommendation, <h3>and when Judge Karas floated the possibility of giving her consecutive sentences for each count of conviction or to exceed the recommended sentence, the prosecutors filed a letter (available below) urging the court to give a sentence within the 0-6 months range and not any higher. While in other white collar crime cases prosecutors have taken a more aggressive stance on sentencing, here they urged the court to stay within the Guidelines and gave the impression that a sentence with no incarceration would be acceptable.</h3>

Judge Karas' indication before sentencing that he was considering a longer prison term made it likely he would sentence Jones at the high end of the Guidelines range. In explaining the sentence, the Judge stated that he wanted to send a message to other athletes who do not adhere to the values of "hard work, dedication, teamwork and sportsmanship." In addition, Judge Karas said, "Athletes in society have an elevated status, they entertain, they inspire, and perhaps, most important, they serve as role models." An AP story (here) discusses the sentencing.

After the Supreme Court's decision in Gall granting district courts broader discretion in sentencing, individualized factors now play a greater role in the punishment determination. But, should an athlete's celebrity status be a basis for imposing an increased sentence in order to "send a message" to others? Jones did not plead guilty to using performance-enhancing drugs, although she had now admitted to using them, so the message is not one tied to the underlying crime.....

Thread title: <h3>Why is Marion Jones going to jail?</h3>

Thread OP:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

I understand she loses her medals, but what criminal offence has she committed??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daoust

If perjury means that she lied under oath, then yes, that. Six months was the maximum sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Because Jones represented our country so well in the 2000 summer olympic games, I'm fairly certain our president will step up, as he did recently, here. She has two young sons at home, and her crimes were certainly less serious than Mr. Libby's were....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070702-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 2, 2007

Statement by the President on Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby

....Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But
I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

host, I always get a chuckle when you try to derail a thread as only you can do. Nice try, though.

SF - I certainly appreciate the sentiment of your statement. In a perfect world, it makes sense. Unfortunately, if it were to come to pass, it would be abused in this world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Note the date of my post, and the date of this NY Times reporting. I guess the NY Times reporter followed my reaction.

I have now supported my the legitimacy of comparing justice for Marrion Jones with 'justice" for the president's perjurer.

I would appreciate it if posters who logged what amount to "drive-by sinped) criticism, seemingly more aimed at me, and my "rep" than as rebuttals of what I actually posted, would drive back around to this thread, pull into a space, shut of the motor, or at least put the shift selector in the "P" position, and actually post an opinion about what I posted, instead of a "quickie", about me. Fair enough?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/sp...ef=todayspaper
Blinded and Broken by Ambition

By HARVEY ARATON
Published: January 12, 2008

White Plains
... When she finally admitted to government investigators that she had used performance-enhancing drugs before and after her five-medal haul at the 2000 Summer Olympics, Jones told them she believed she had been using flaxseed oil given to her by her former coach, Trevor Graham. The judge said he found it “a very difficult thing to believe” that Jones, as a world-class athlete, would not have recognized the dramatic effects on her body and her results as they occurred.

“I am troubled, quite frankly, by that statement,” Karas said, and who objectively could blame him? He soon after announced the six-month sentence based on Jones’s guilty plea to two counts of perjury, to be followed by two years of probation, with an appropriate mix of sadness and resolve.

Yes, he might have accepted the assertion by one of Jones’s attorneys, F. Hill Allen, that Jones had made a courageous, legacy-unraveling admission, had already been “pilloried, battered and dragged through the public square.” <h2>No, the sanctimonious call for jail time doesn’t come easily when the government can so blithely spring one of its own (see President Bush’s commuting of Scooter Libby’s 30-month sentence for four counts of perjury in the Valerie Plame case).</h2>....

In 2004, GW Bush appointed Kenneth Karas to the federal bench. Patrick J. Fitzgerald seems a brighter, more capable choice for the appointment to the bench that was awarded to Karas.

You don't see hypocrisy, you aren't disgusted by the lack of equal justice, under the law....but you bothered to drive-by to log here, that "host" is posting OT, in your opinions, but, in a one sentence, toss the rolled up newspaper out the window and onto the porch kinda delivery, you really couldn't say why, host was the problem with the discussion here.

He just was....right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

.....And host, as a close follower of track and field, I didn't "drive-by" your post. I actually read it. You just chose to respond take one sentence in the NYT article and post about it. I'll discuss politics in the appropriate place, but don't try to derail one of the few places that I actually get to talk about track here. All you "proved" was that you and the reporter want to grind the same axe.

The_Jazz, the "drive-by", I refer to, is the practice of posting a line or two, attempting to discredit the poster, without actually responding to the argument and it's support.

We have a former celebrity, a US triple gold medal Olympic champion. She is a first offender, pleading guilty to a charge of lying to investigators, before a federal judge appointed by president Bush, and her sentencing takes place six months after Bush commuted, in advance of any incarceration, the entire prison sentence of Lewis Libby, a former presidential advisor and COS of the VP, who did not plead guilty to any of 5 counts of perjury before a federal grand jury in a criminal investigation, and went to trial and was found guilty by a jury of four of the perjury counts.

The former Olympic champion's sentencing judge, is on record of going out of his way to sentence this first offender who pled guilty of a non-violent crime, to prison time, contrary to expressed sentiments of the prosecutors in the case. Marion Jones pled guilty, she did not put prosecutors and the court through the time and resources expending effort of a criminal jury trial, as Lewis Libby had.

Libby's prosecutors communicated this, in a memo to the trial judge:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18868887/
By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News
updated 4:51 p.m. ET, Fri., May. 25, 2007

WASHINGTON - Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, in a sentencing memo, has recommended that former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

Libby was convicted in March of four of five felony counts against him. He is scheduled to be sentenced on June 5th before U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton

Falsehoods were central
Judge Walton is not compelled to follow federal sentencing guidelines and could impose either a stronger or weaker sentence on Libby.

Libby was sentenced, a short time later, to 30 months in prison.

A month later, before Libby reported to prison to serve even a day, the president commuted his entire sentence and said:

Quote:

.....In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.....

Former Olympic star, Marion Jone's prison sentence, meted out by a judge appointed by the very same president who commuted recently the entire prison sentence of the most recent, prior, high profile defendant, to be sentenced on a similar criminal conviction, lying in a federal criminal investigation, is a relevant comparison of Jone's experience in the criminal justice system, vs. Lewis Libby's.

It is reasonable to make that comparison on this thread, and to highlight the different reactions to the two offenders, and the different "justice" they have received. The accused who pled guilty is going to prison, contrary to her prosecutors' sentencing memo to the judge, <h3>and the accused who resisted the process, forcing a lengthy trial before he was convicted, and who was sentenced exactly in accordance with the prosecution's sentencing memo to the judge, later had the good fortune to have the president of the United States decide that Libby's prison sentence was "excessive", to the point that it was just to wipe it completely away.</h3>

I don't believe that it is unreasonable given the above comparison, to post here as if the injustice done to Marion Jones, compared to Mr. Libby, is obvious, since I immediately thought that it was.

I've already commented on my reaction to how you have chosen to respond to my posts in this thread.

Ustwo · 01-15-2008, 06:29 AM

All I can say is I'm very upset no read my very important links which would teach you many things about this harry situation and really show you who the head ape in charge is, wielding the big pardon banana.

01-11-2008, 04:57 PM	#1 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Why is Marion Jones going to jail? I understand she loses her medals, but what criminal offence has she committed?? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-11-2008, 05:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	Jones, 32, pleaded guilty in October to lying to federal agents over a steroid distribution scandal involving California laboratory BALCO and her role in a cheque fraud scheme. perjury and she was involved with a check-fraud case Last edited by Fotzlid; 01-11-2008 at 05:08 PM..

01-11-2008, 05:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
Daoust "I'm sorry. What was the question?" Location: Paradise Regained	If perjury means that she lied under oath, then yes, that. Six months was the maximum sentence. __________________ I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

01-11-2008, 05:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Hope they catch a few more such cheats but more importantly tighten up the drug testing. She was tested over 100 times in and out of competition, but the BALCO designer drugs were never found. Apparently, there are better tests available than that which the Olympics and IAAF use, but the cost is higher (and I think they are afraid they'll catch over half the athletes at major competitions, too). __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

01-11-2008, 07:53 PM	#6 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	So what does Scooter and GW have to do with Marion Jones going to jail? Marion Jones should get a presidential pardon? __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

01-12-2008, 03:48 AM	#7 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	i think you will find that hosts' comment was tongue in cheek marion lied under oath. she got caught up in cheque fraud with her former boyfriend (and former 100m world record holder) tim montgomery who has been banned from racing due to drugs also. she deserves what she got. being a single mum is no excuse, nor should it be. i personally think they went easy on her. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

01-12-2008, 05:50 AM	#8 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	sending a woman to prison is a pretty serious thing. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-13-2008, 02:15 AM	#10 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	It is completely different to send a man to prison than to imprison a women. It is far more serious to imprison a woman, especially a mother. What crime have her children committed to deserve this punishment? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-13-2008, 04:07 AM	#11 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	First of all, Host... that was a bit of unrelated nonsense. Please take your grindstone elsewhere. Second, sending a woman to prison is not more or less serious than sending a man. To suggest otherwise is pretty sexist. Crime is crime. To the crime be prepared to do the time. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-13-2008, 10:31 AM	#15 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	So, to get out of going to jail, a woman should just get knocked up, and then we can give her a pass? Because that is what you are suggesting. Additionally, you minimize the importance of fatherhood, it seems. Should fathers not go to prison either? Do I get a break if I commit a crime because I have a young child? If I die on the front line of a war, is it less tragic than if the dental hygenist next door gets blown up? My life has less value? If women want the same opportunities as men - to be high earning pro athletes like Marion Jones, to be world leaders like Maggie Thatcher or possibily Hillary Clinton, to run Fortune 500 companies like Martha Stewart - they can enjoy those opportunities, but if they fall afoul of the law, they must pay the penalty just as the other 50% of humanity would. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

01-13-2008, 11:34 AM	#17 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	host, I always get a chuckle when you try to derail a thread as only you can do. Nice try, though. SF - I certainly appreciate the sentiment of your statement. In a perfect world, it makes sense. Unfortunately, if it were to come to pass, it would be abused in this world. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

01-13-2008, 04:25 PM	#22 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Host this is one of the biggest problems with your posting... it might have been relevant to the discussion but ultimately you did not make your point, you left it up to the reader to read a posted article and then hoped that that reader would come the same conclusion as you. It is lazy posting and people don't like it. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-13-2008, 05:59 PM	#25 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Can we get back on the fucking topic and just ban the next person who mentions politics? Where is the moderator when you need him? __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

01-14-2008, 07:49 AM	#32 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	We'll have to agree to disagree. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

01-14-2008, 10:37 AM	#34 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	The prosecution did not seek a prison term in any case. The judge acted out of nothing but mysogony, brutality, and the desire of the cheap and tawdry rewards of fame. If the prosecution does not ask for jail time, how can the judge pass this sentence? Everyone involve recognised that she had been punished enough - except for this judge who is so desperate to see his name in headlines that he will attempt to destroy the life of this woman to do it. The cheque fraud is a separate issue in any case. This sentence is for lying about taking steroids. It is lunatic to jail someone for this. EVERY sports star should refuse to ever answer a question in any kind of congressional court of this nature again, in defence of Marion Jones. I would refuse to attend their session alltogether, and advise them that they would need to arrest me and bring me to trial for a criminal offence before I would speak to their court. If every athlete did the same, this kind of outrage couldnt happen. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-14-2008, 12:57 PM	#36 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	I would like to know who else was doping. Are we going to see confessions from Micheal Johnson and gasp Carl Lewis now? Maybe not, they would be too afraid of the obvious repercussions.

01-14-2008, 01:02 PM	#37 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	It's only six months. Less time than what Martha Stewart got when she purjured herself in the ImClone insider trading scandal. Less time than what Li'l Kim got when she purjured herself over her involvement in a shooting outside of a radio station. We'll talk injustice and mysogyny and racial bias or political affiliation and preferential treatment for the rich and famous when she's getting 5-10 for this. __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

01-15-2008, 06:29 AM	#40 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	All I can say is I'm very upset no read my very important links which would teach you many things about this harry situation and really show you who the head ape in charge is, wielding the big pardon banana. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.