All the Scandal That's Fit to Print
Can I just ask who the hell cares whether Jeannine Pirro's husband had an affair or not? Why is this on the cover of the New York Times?
For those who don't watch TV or read newspapers, Ms. Pirro is a candidate for Attorney General in New York and apparently, that job requires someone who won't try to bug her own phone when she suspects her husband is cheating on her, 'cause that's what the media is going on and on about! Can you believe it? It's like if someone were, say, a CEO of a major corporation, had a fling with, I don't know, an intern, and all the media outlets went on and on about it. My question in these kinds of situations is always "does this 'scandal' have an adverse effect on their ability to do the job they were hired for?" In the case of Jeannine Pirro, I'm guessing the answer is no, unless she's so obsessed with her husband's (alleged) infidelity she can't focus on other matters.
And so it was with William Jefferson Clinton (a former Chief Executive Office of a major corporation - the US government). When he took up with a plucky young intern, the two of them laughing, trying on berets and sharing a slice of pizza or a good cigar, you'd think he was sending American troops into a country to fight for a cause he built up in his own mind. Sheesh! The way the republicans (and the media, which appears to be owned by the republicans) went on and on about it, you'd think it was a matter of national security instead of something his wife should be kind of pissed about.
I could not forgive the republicans for taking up so much of President Clinton's time with this nonsense that matters not one bit to (most of) the constituents who put him in office. I still can't forgive them for that idiocy (and for attempting to make something heinous out of Mr. Clinton's Whitewater real estate dealings, or for falsely claiming the Clinton's trashed the White House on their way out, or for any of the other things they attempted to pin on one of this nation's greatest leaders), but I won't now turn around and allow the same thing to happen to one of their people. Ms. Pirro deserves to be judged on her shoddy performances at news conferences and her spotty career decisions instead of her performance in her marriage. The only one who has the right to judge that performance is her husband. So everybody else just shut up about it already!
For a time (and maybe still today?), there were those who said Matt must be Ben Affleck's gay boyfriend because they've been together so long and spend so much time together and seem to really enjoy each other and stuff like that there. Well, if that's true then my friend Joe is my gay boyfriend, 'cause we love to hang out together, and see shows together, and no one makes me laugh like he does. But we're not boyfriends or lovers or even two people having a scandalous affair. We're just friends. That's just the way it is with Matt and Ben. They're very, very good friends. And now they've both got daughters who will grow up together and spend time together and (hopefully) laugh together. Oh no, do you think as they mature, people will say they're lesbian lovers?
Will the cycle never end? Friends are friends and spouses are spouses and really, the only people who should be concerned with defining the relationship are those directly involved. I don't care if Jeannine Pirro or Bill Clinton have affairs. And I certainly don't think the New York Times should care. Shame on you, New York Times, for stooping to the level of reportage employed by those at the National Enquirer! If Jeannine Pirro starts bugging average citizens of New York, because she suspects, oh I don't know, that they might, in some inestimable way, have sommething or other to do with terrorism, now, that would be something worth reporting. Do you see the difference?
For those who don't watch TV or read newspapers, Ms. Pirro is a candidate for Attorney General in New York and apparently, that job requires someone who won't try to bug her own phone when she suspects her husband is cheating on her, 'cause that's what the media is going on and on about! Can you believe it? It's like if someone were, say, a CEO of a major corporation, had a fling with, I don't know, an intern, and all the media outlets went on and on about it. My question in these kinds of situations is always "does this 'scandal' have an adverse effect on their ability to do the job they were hired for?" In the case of Jeannine Pirro, I'm guessing the answer is no, unless she's so obsessed with her husband's (alleged) infidelity she can't focus on other matters.
And so it was with William Jefferson Clinton (a former Chief Executive Office of a major corporation - the US government). When he took up with a plucky young intern, the two of them laughing, trying on berets and sharing a slice of pizza or a good cigar, you'd think he was sending American troops into a country to fight for a cause he built up in his own mind. Sheesh! The way the republicans (and the media, which appears to be owned by the republicans) went on and on about it, you'd think it was a matter of national security instead of something his wife should be kind of pissed about.
I could not forgive the republicans for taking up so much of President Clinton's time with this nonsense that matters not one bit to (most of) the constituents who put him in office. I still can't forgive them for that idiocy (and for attempting to make something heinous out of Mr. Clinton's Whitewater real estate dealings, or for falsely claiming the Clinton's trashed the White House on their way out, or for any of the other things they attempted to pin on one of this nation's greatest leaders), but I won't now turn around and allow the same thing to happen to one of their people. Ms. Pirro deserves to be judged on her shoddy performances at news conferences and her spotty career decisions instead of her performance in her marriage. The only one who has the right to judge that performance is her husband. So everybody else just shut up about it already!
For a time (and maybe still today?), there were those who said Matt must be Ben Affleck's gay boyfriend because they've been together so long and spend so much time together and seem to really enjoy each other and stuff like that there. Well, if that's true then my friend Joe is my gay boyfriend, 'cause we love to hang out together, and see shows together, and no one makes me laugh like he does. But we're not boyfriends or lovers or even two people having a scandalous affair. We're just friends. That's just the way it is with Matt and Ben. They're very, very good friends. And now they've both got daughters who will grow up together and spend time together and (hopefully) laugh together. Oh no, do you think as they mature, people will say they're lesbian lovers?Will the cycle never end? Friends are friends and spouses are spouses and really, the only people who should be concerned with defining the relationship are those directly involved. I don't care if Jeannine Pirro or Bill Clinton have affairs. And I certainly don't think the New York Times should care. Shame on you, New York Times, for stooping to the level of reportage employed by those at the National Enquirer! If Jeannine Pirro starts bugging average citizens of New York, because she suspects, oh I don't know, that they might, in some inestimable way, have sommething or other to do with terrorism, now, that would be something worth reporting. Do you see the difference?
posted by Sam at 6:03 AM
5 Comments:
I know! It's very snoresville that this infidelity is getting so much airplay. Everyone is doing the same thing to everyone else so why is the Pirro marriage so important? In France (okay, so they can be snooty but they have much better health care than the US) they are laughing their asses off at this. Late president Francois Mitterand openly had a mistress (not that I condone infidelity--just that it's no one's business) who came to his funeral along with the wife.
You're so right, Dish. The French are much more sophisticated when it comes to matters of the heart (or the loins). They are right to laugh at our silly games as we try to cover it all up from the press and the press tries to get the innocent public interested in our nocturnal missions.
Ms. Pirro is a honest and a proffessional DA. Well, let us take a look at this. As the highest law enforcement officer in the county, right under her nose is her (convicted)husbands tax fraud and his possible organized crime ties. Lets not mention a possible self esteem problem with all of the plastic surgery. Ms. Pirro wants us to believe that she barely communicates with her husband. That is very odd. They are both lawyers, correct? Would the top DA in the county have something, anything to say to her (lawyer) husband about work at the end of the day??? If not this seems like a communication problem between a husband and wife. According to Ms. Pirro she also wants us to believe that; she knew nothing, she saw nothing,and she heard nothing about her husband business associates. She sounds like the character "Shultz" from "Hogan's Heros".
Ms. Pirro also seems to be on cable news programs speaking about crime outside of Westchester. I wonder if this is done for the good of the county or self promotion?? Lets go back to Mrs. Stein. I think all four appelate judges agreed that she was not given a fair trial because of the DA office and trial errors by the trial judge. This is not my opinion read from the appelate decesion below(partial). I think it was written somewhere that we have the right to a fair trial?
Contrary to the findings of the hearing court, the defendant was denied a fair trial by the People's failure to disclose that two of the complainants had filed notices of claim with the defendant's employer, a school district, attempting to hold it responsible for the defendant's alleged criminal conduct (see Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 [1972]; Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]). The hearing court ignored the testimony of the attorney for those two complainants that the attorney had told prosecutors about the notices of claim before the defendant's trial, and a letter from the school district faxed to the District Attorney's office almost three months before the trial commenced which [*2]acknowledged that two of the complainants had "civil claims against" the school district. "Negligent, as well as deliberate, nondisclosure may deny due process. Good faith, therefore, may not excuse even a negligent failure to disclose unrequested exculpatory evidence where that evidence is highly material to the defense" (People v Simmons, 36 NY2d 126, 132 [1975]).
Evidence that two of the complainants were seeking damages based on the defendant's conduct which only they had witnessed was highly relevant to the issue of their credibility (see Giglio v United States, supra at 154; People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490, 496 [1987]; People v Wallert, 98 AD2d 47 [1983]). The failure to turn over this evidence was aggravated by the prosecutor's argument during summation that there was no evidence that the complainants were bringing civil lawsuits as a result of the defendant's conduct (see People v Wallert, supra). There is a reasonable probability that this failure to disclose affected the outcome of the trial (see People v Bryce, 88 NY2d 124, 128 [1996]; People v Baxley, 84 NY2d 208, 214 [1994]).
I think when the court stated "People's failure to disclose" this means the DA's office. And "the failure to turn over this evidence was aggravated by the prosecutor's" this seems pretty close to someone lying.
I don't think that Mrs. Stein is trying to embarass Ms. Pirro. Ms. Pirro, Mr. Pirro, and her office is doing a fine job of that.
Local NY newspaper article.
AL PIRRO GETS 29 MONTHS
By DEVLIN BARRETT
High-roller tax cheat Al Pirro - husband of Westchester District
Attorney Jeanine Pirro - must pay for his "mad pursuit of some
American dream" by serving 21/2 years in prison, a judge said
yesterday.
"You somehow lost your bearing and lost your perspective,"
federal Judge Barrington Parker told the disgraced powerbroker
and lobbyist.
Jeanine Pirro - whose dreams of running as a GOP candidate for
Senate against Hillary Rodham Clinton were dashed when her
husband was charged early last year - bowed her head with a
pained expression as the judge chastised her husband in a White
Plains courtroom.
Al Pirro was convicted on all 34 counts of tax evasion in June
for claiming $1.2 million worth of personal expenses - including
sports cars, vacations and luxury furniture - as business costs.
"You sort of charged off in mad pursuit of some American dream,
with the cars and the vacation homes and the paintings and all
the things we heard about at trial," the judge said.
Parker marveled at the roughly 100 letters of support written by
Pirro's friends and supporters asking for leniency.
"Nobody talked about your cars, they talked about your kindness,
your character," Parker said as he leveled Pirro with a sentence
of two years and five months.
"All these people who cared so dearly for you will be there [when
you get out of prison]."
Pirro, a real-estate developer with strong ties to the state GOP,
made a public mea culpa for dimming his wife's political
fortunes.
"To my wife, Jeanine, I wish to publicly apologize for the
difficulties which I have imposed upon her in carrying out her
professional aspirations, as well as tarnishing her stellar
record as what I believe is one of the leading prosecutors of
this country," he said.
Pirro made an unexpected pitch to voters not to punish Jeanine -
who is up for re-election next year - for his crimes.
"I only hope that the people of Westchester County will
understand that I alone am accountable for our present
circumstances," he said.
Jeanine, wearing a black suit, nervously fingered a small silver
piece of jewelry for much of the hearing, and vowed to try to
hold on to her job.
"This has been a terrible ordeal for my family, my children," she
said after the court proceeding. "I am the district attorney
right now. It's a job that I love. I intend to stay district
attorney."
She will have to campaign next year while her disbarred lawyer
husband languishes in a federal lock-up.
The judge agreed to recommend Al Pirro be sent to a federal
penitentiary in Florida when he surrenders in January, so his
children can visit him from the family's nearby vacation home.
Al Pirro will undergo substance-abuse counseling. He has a
history of taking antidepressant prescription drugs.
"I don't think it's the end of the earth or the end of life," he
said outside the courthouse.
His brother and accountant, Anthony, got three years in prison.
Anonymous 1 - thank you so much for visiting and for leaving a comment. It's always a great surprise to see that someone out there is reading the silly little things I write.
However, your comment begins "Ms. Pirro is a honest and a proffessional DA." I'm scratching my head over why you would comment on such a thing. I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that the news media was making a big stink over her personal life - and that's not germane to her job. Listen, I'm not going to be accused of defending a republican! That's certainly never my intention! My post pointed out that President Clinton was "impeached" (four Articles of Impeachment were drawn up and two were approved by the House, but a vote of not guilty came back on both of them in the Senate) for something that had very little (if anything) to do with his job.
Recently the same sort of stink was happening to Ms. Pirro and I just wanted to point out that, while I believe republicans are evil in the way that Rosemary's Baby and Damien from The Omen are evil, I don't think any politician should be taken to task in the press for their personal life unless it directly impacts on their job - for example, republican Mark Foley and the way he seems to be so easily distracted by luscious, smooth, ripe, young boys in their let's- run-for-class-president suits as they strut around the floor of the Congress looking all sexy and tempting. How could a recovering alcoholic (currently in rehab reminiscing about his abuse by a Catholic priest) resist?
Anonymous 2 - are you the same person as Anonymous 1? Regardless, I find it curious that you would post an entire news article by AP writer Devlin Barrett and attribute it only to a "local NY newspaper article." Why not give credit to the paper that picked up Mr. Barrett's wire report? I did a quick Google search and came up with only ZubazPants.com, which doesn't seem to be a local NY newspaper at all.
Nonetheless, I'm grateful for your contribution, as I had no idea Mr. Pirro had been convicted. It's comforting to me to see that sometimes the republicans get their comeuppance as well.
Thanks to both Anonymous posters for the facts you've provided. I do appreciate your contributions.
Post a Comment
<< Home