New Coulter Piece...........

John blueoval at 1SMARTISP.NET
Thu Sep 1 20:13:00 MDT 2005


 	
The Lady, Ann Coulter, does tickle my funny bone.
She is wonderfully bright, wonderfully satiric,
and she makes me chuckle, because she is so right!
Do enjoy! Allen.  alod at huntel.net
BTW - I understand that some newspaper out west chose to
drop Ann Coulter's column because she is "too caustic." Well,
she is far less so than Maureen Dowd, and/or Frank Rich - both
of the New York Times. Obviously, the editor who chose to drop
Ann's column has two problems: 1) he lacks a mature sense of 
humor,
and 2) he's an ideologue.  His readers are the losers.


TED KENNEDY'S PRIVATE PARTS: PART I
by Ann Coulter
August 31, 2005

Sen. Teddy Kennedy has demanded that the Bush administration waive 
attorney-client privilege and release internal memos John Roberts 
worked on while in the solicitor general's office 15 years ago, 
all of which were supposed to be held in the deepest confidence. 
Apparently, Kennedy thinks public officials have no right to keep 
even their attorney-client communications secret.

This surprised me because the senator is such a strong advocate of 
the (nonexistent) "right to privacy." And not just in the way most 
drunken, Spanish quiz-cheating, no-pants-wearing public reprobates 
generally cherish their own personal right to privacy. I mean 
privacy in the abstract.

I know as much about the "right to privacy" as I know about any 
other made-up, nonexistent right, but I would have thought that 
any "right to privacy" would protect confidential attorney-client 
conversations at least as much as, say, abortions in public 
buildings.

But I'll have to defer to the expert.

Consequently, applying the principle even-handedly to members of 
the executive branch as well as the legislative branch, I demand 
that Kennedy immediately waive all attorney-client privilege 
relating to his communications with his lawyer after he drove Mary 
Jo Kopechne off the bridge at Chappaquiddick. It's time to clear 
up, once and for all, the many questions that have swirled around 
Kennedy since Chappaquiddick.

Oops — "swirled" may have been a poor choice of words there. How 
about "floated"? Nope. "Surfaced"? Oooh — even worse, in terms of 
irony. "Come to light"? OK, now I'm just being obtuse. "Beset"? 
Yes, that's better.

Youth is no defense. John Roberts was 26 years old when he wrote 
the documents that Kennedy demands on behalf of the Senate. 
Kennedy was 36 when he drove Mary Jo Kopechne off a bridge.

If the Senate needs to know what Roberts thought about the law at 
age 26, then the Senate certainly needs to know what Kennedy 
thought about the law at age 36, when he drowned a girl and then 
spent the rest of the evening concocting an alibi instead of 
calling the police.

This isn't a "rehash" of Chappaquiddick; it's never been hashed. 
The Senate needs to know whether Kennedy was guilty of 
manslaughter. How else can the Senate be expected to carry out its 
constitutional duty to expel Kennedy unless Kennedy makes these 
key documents available?

We'll pick them up in the same van we send to collect John Kerry's 
military records and Bill Clinton's medical records.

While we wait, here's my guess as to what those attorney-client 
conversations sounded like, based on the facts in Leo Damore's 
book "Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-Up":

Interview with client Teddy Kennedy, July 19, 1969:

Teddy: May I approach the bench?

Lawyer: It's not a bench, Teddy. It's my desk. And no, you can't 
have another Chivas Regal.

Teddy: (Hiccup)

Lawyer: Let's start at the beginning.

Teddy: I'm going to say you were driving.

Lawyer: No, you are not saying I was driving.

Teddy: OK, someone in your family was driving.

Lawyer: They weren't even in Massachusetts that week. Can we move 
on? Why didn't you call the police after the accident, Teddy?

Teddy: I had to protect my political career, obviously. But this 
wasn't just about me! I was thinking about future drunk, 
philandering U.S. senators who may or may not have just drowned 
some chick they met at a party.

Lawyer: But what about Mary Jo —

Teddy: Yes, precisely! How would it look if I, a United States 
senator, were driving off to a secluded beach at midnight with a 
beautiful, nubile female after a private party? How would that 
look?

Lawyer: But Mary Jo was still alive for two hours —

Teddy: Did I mention my wife was pregnant? You think I should have 
reported the accident now, Mr. Smartypants?

Lawyer: She was trapped in that car, struggling to breathe!

Teddy: Do you know that two of my brothers were assassinated?

Lawyer: She was still alive! You could have saved her!

Teddy: Yeah, and say goodbye to my presidential ambitions. There 
was the future of the country to consider — as well as the future 
of the Chivas Regal company and all their employees. I am a 
Kennedy. I have a divine right to the presidency. I had to put 
that ahead of my lawyer's conscience. Anyway, Mary Jo was 
driving.

Lawyer: Teddy, we can't say Mary Jo was driving.

Teddy: What if some phony witness claimed that the driver stopped 
to ask for directions. Wouldn't that prove it was a woman 
driving?

Lawyer: But what about the witnesses?

Teddy: We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Hey, what's so 
funny? Did I just say something funny?

To be continued ...

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list