The Reticulator

No, not the socks into which he stuffed documents. I’m talking about Socks, the cat.

Hillary dumped an innocent cat when he was no longer politically useful. But she picked up a convicted national security risk, and made him an unofficial adviser to her campaign. Could it be she expects him to be useful? Has he done more for her than Socks did?

This is a photo of our Calico Cat, caught sleeping in the dog dish again. That may have been in 2002. She has since died, at about age 16. And more recently, E-Flat, too, has died, also at a very old age, leaving us with no cats at all. (Mittens and Theophrastus died many years ago.) Somewhere in between Calico and E-Flat, Toelpel died. He was a black Lab mutt, a contemporary of Calico. So there are no animals to keep the mice, chipmunks, and whitetail deer at bay. And it’s the time of year when mice are trying to move indoors to winter quarters.

Everytime I become aware of a stray cat that needs adopting, my wife says no, because she is the one who will have to care for it. (Which is true.) But she has left the door open a bit to the possibility of getting another cat if it’s a Tuxedo cat, like Mittens.

Well, guess what? Socks, too, is a Tuxedo cat. He’s pretty old by now, but if Betty Currie feels put upon to have him, I know where he could find a good home. He wouldn’t even be required to catch mice, though it would be nice if he could advise us on matters of household security.

I make no such offer if Sandy Burger gets dumped.  I make no such offer to take in Sandy Berger if he gets dumped.  I have a hard enough time as it is finding the papers I need without having to search peoples’ shorts.

Sen. Clinton: Sandy Berger has ‘no official role in my campaign’

So is that supposed to make it better? Is that sufficient to make the media quit asking more questions about it?

I mean, the guy is a crook. He jeopardized national security and stole government documents, getting off with a slap on the wrist.

What difference does it make if his role is “unofficial?” Back when the Clintons were obstructing justice, did it somehow make it better if it wasn’t done “officially”?

Or is Hillary just trying to flaunt her basic criminality, knowing it will serve her well if she can corrupt the news media now by making them accomplices. (It’s the same psychological technique LBJ used on his aides, making them come close and conduct business while he sat on the toilet stool taking care of bodily functions usually done in private. It broke down their self-respect and made them partakers in his ruthless behavior.)

I suspect she is telling us there will be no official crimes, but that there will be crimes. And she wants the media to know and fear her criminal nature, and to not dare speak loudly of it.

Here is a reminder from Larry Klayman, lest we forget, of the kind of behavior she is asking us to pretend to forget, but to remember well.

While Judicial Watch has asked FBI Director Louis Freeh to investigate this attempted judge-tampering by the Clinton-Gore White House — and he has promised to do so in a personal letter which I received in the last few weeks — the “hazing” of Judge Lamberth continues unabated.

In a bogus and premature “appeal” of Judge Lamberth’s finding that the president had violated Ms. Willey’s privacy rights — through a writ of mandamus procedure — the Clinton-Gore Justice Department mocked and ridiculed this fine jurist in court pleadings. Asking the appellate court to set aside Judge Lamberth’s ruling even before the end of the case — which is when appeals are supposed to be heard — the president asked the higher judicial body to do him a favor and reverse the lower court’s decision now. The motive was obviously to protect the Senate race of Hillary Clinton — who participated in the crime committed by the president.

When the “appeal” was argued in court last week, two liberal pro-Clinton judges on the three-judge panel continued the personal attack. While effectively admitting that the attempted appeal was premature, procedurally flawed, and thus frivolous, these two judges questioned, in mocking language, how any decision by Judge Lamberth could be respected. One of the appellate judges, who was appointed by Democrat President Jimmy Carter, went so far as to say, while himself incredibly laughing from the bench:

To be very candid, I think any White House, no matter who is in it, would laugh at the suggestion Judge Lamberth is your guiding light.

Yesterday, this liberal appeals court panel, which included a Clinton appointee who refused to recuse himself, predictably was forced to affirm Judge Lamberth’s decision but, again, could not resist taking more shots at him. In largely unnecessary language of their own, they stated:

We view the District Court’s discussion of the crime-fraud exception [i.e., finding that Bill Clinton had committed a crime] as unnecessary to his decision. Indeed, it was inappropriate for the District Court gratuitously to invoke sweeping pronouncements on alleged criminal activity that extended well beyond what was necessary to decide the matters at hand.

Not only was this behavior transparent — to embarrass Judge Lamberth in front of a packed courtroom of over 200 reporters and then in a written opinion — but perhaps was also done in order to put a chilling effect on Lamberth’s willingness to continue to make strong rulings against the most corrupt administration in American history. You see, judges of a feather — largely liberal Democrats in this instance — flock together, lest they forfeit their ability to curry favor in influential political circles that can advance, or destroy, their aspirations.

The WSJ continues to pursue the Hsu campaign finance scandal.   It now reports this about what Hsu was trying to accomplish.

Federal prosecutors said in a criminal complaint that Democratic fund-raiser Norman Hsu pressured investors to make campaign contributions through him in order to raise his public profile — then used his prominence to find more investors for illegal Ponzi schemes.

Link: Hsu is accused of Ponzi scheme

But why isn’t anybody asking the next question:  Why Hillary?

Contributors who are looking for some advantage usually hedge their bets by contributing to both parties.  Even a leftwing partisan like Steve Jobs tossed a $1000 bone to Republicans.   Bill Gates contributes to both parties.  So why did all of Hsu’s money go to Democrats, and such a large amount of it to Hillary?

It’s tempting to snark about the Ponzi aspects of Hillary’s ideas on social security or health care.  But really, what kind of reason would that be for Hsu to orchestrate so much money to be sent to her campaign.

If he’s looking for more investors, wouldn’t he want to find some rich Republicans to invest in his schemes?  And wouldn’t the way to do that be by donating money among Republican candidates, too?