http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N
Full Version: Democrats a big recipient of Abrahamoff money
I know, I am probably late, but I have ignored the news lately. But I just heard that over 80 Democrats were recipients of Abrahamoff money. Wow, Pot meet Kettle.
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N
QUOTE(VABills @ Jan 26 2006, 08:33 AM)
I know, I am probably late, but I have ignored the news lately. But I just heard that over 80 Democrats were recipients of Abrahamoff money. Wow, Pot meet Kettle.
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N
[right][snapback]584284[/snapback][/right]
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N
[right][snapback]584284[/snapback][/right]
I am waiting for the "yeah...Dems may do it, but Republicans are worse" response.
shhh, don't tell the BushBad! crowd. you'll ruin their buzz man
QUOTE(VABills @ Jan 26 2006, 08:33 AM)
I know, I am probably late, but I have ignored the news lately. But I just heard that over 80 Democrats were recipients of Abrahamoff money. Wow, Pot meet Kettle.
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N
[right][snapback]584284[/snapback][/right]
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N
[right][snapback]584284[/snapback][/right]
You mean the Democrats are just as corrupted as the Republicans?!?
I am shocked, I tell you, shocked! 
Not all of his donations were illegal quid-pro-quo transactions with Congressmen. The majority of both Democrats and Republicans will not be indited for breaking the law. The majority of those that will be indited though will be Republicans. The devil's in the details. There's bad seeds on both sides, but this time it's the Republicans that went overboard with their greed.
QUOTE(PastaJoe @ Jan 26 2006, 09:47 AM)
Not all of his donations were illegal quid-pro-quo transactions with Congressmen. The majority of both Democrats and Republicans will not be indited for breaking the law. The majority of those that will be indited though will be Republicans. The devil's in the details. There's bad seeds on both sides, but this time it's the Republicans that went overboard with their greed.
[right][snapback]584350[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]584350[/snapback][/right]
No disagreement, Pasta. If indictment is proffered and guilt is found, so be it.
I was flipping channels this A.M. Howard Dean was on the Today Show, being interviewed by Katy Couric via video link. Howard said there were no, none, nada Democrats that had anything to do with Abramoff. Poor Katy bugged her eyes a bit, and said, "well, we will check into that".
QUOTE(PastaJoe @ Jan 26 2006, 10:47 AM)
Not all of his donations were illegal quid-pro-quo transactions with Congressmen. The majority of both Democrats and Republicans will not be indited for breaking the law. The majority of those that will be indited though will be Republicans. The devil's in the details. There's bad seeds on both sides, but this time it's the Republicans that went overboard with their greed.
[right][snapback]584350[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]584350[/snapback][/right]
Like I said, not really watching the news lately. Just heard this little snippet and found it funny. We'll see who really was "involved" and "greedy". A lot of the hype is probably election year BS, and when the facts come out or don't, my guess is they were either all equally guilty or not guilty (as they will all agree to drop it). But the news media will never allow the facts to come out.
QUOTE(VABills @ Jan 26 2006, 10:24 AM)
But the news media will never allow the facts to come out.
[right][snapback]584401[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]584401[/snapback][/right]
Nor will the White House, as in not releasing any requested info about who Abramoff met with and how many times, or the picture of Bush having a sit down meeting with Abramoff's Indian casino client or Bush with Abramoff.
QUOTE(stuckincincy @ Jan 26 2006, 10:19 AM)
No disagreement, Pasta. If indictment is proffered and guilr is found, so be it.
I was flipping channels this A.M. Howard Dean was on the Today Show, being interviewed by Katy Couric via video link. Howard said there were no, none, nada Democrats that had anything to do with Abramoff. Poor Katy bugged her eyes a bit, and said, "well, we will check into that".
[right][snapback]584390[/snapback][/right]
I was flipping channels this A.M. Howard Dean was on the Today Show, being interviewed by Katy Couric via video link. Howard said there were no, none, nada Democrats that had anything to do with Abramoff. Poor Katy bugged her eyes a bit, and said, "well, we will check into that".
[right][snapback]584390[/snapback][/right]
Sadly, there exists a Howard Dean. As much as I dislike the direction we taken under the current administration, the opposition must do better than put up a shmoe like him to be their dissenting voice......
QUOTE(SpidersWeb @ Jan 26 2006, 11:06 AM)
Sadly, there exists a Howard Dean. As much as I dislike the direction we taken under the current administration, the opposition must do better than put up a shmoe like him to be their dissenting voice......
[right][snapback]584463[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]584463[/snapback][/right]
Indeed. The recent crop of Dem offerings spit on the concept of a diffused, balanced government as at least I feel the Founders wanted.
They have lost a degree of character, and proceed to marginalize such as Sen. Lieberman.
I hope the reset their compass. Howie and the likes of Hillary, Gore, Leahy, Pelosi. Daschle et al need to learn how to act with decorum. They only stoke flames, not betterment.
Sad. People like H. Humphrey, RFK, Wellstone etc. must be spinning in their graves...
IMO, their last decent Presidential hopefuls were Mondale and Lieberman. Perhaps McCarthy and McGovern. All of which cared more about providing governance according to their lights, than personal aggrandizement.
QUOTE
Indeed. The recent crop of Dem offerings spit on the concept of a diffused, balanced government as at least I feel the Founders wanted.
They have lost a degree of character, and proceed to marginalize such as Sen. Lieberman.
I hope the reset their compass. Howie and the likes of Hillary, Gore, Leahy, Pelosi. Daschle et al need to learn how to act with decorum. They only stoke flames, not betterment.
Sad. People like H. Humphrey, RFK, Wellstone etc. must be spinning in their graves...
IMO, their last decent Presidential hopefuls were Mondale and Lieberman. Perhaps McCarthy and McGovern. All of which cared more about providing governance according to their lights, than personal aggrandizement.
They have lost a degree of character, and proceed to marginalize such as Sen. Lieberman.
I hope the reset their compass. Howie and the likes of Hillary, Gore, Leahy, Pelosi. Daschle et al need to learn how to act with decorum. They only stoke flames, not betterment.
Sad. People like H. Humphrey, RFK, Wellstone etc. must be spinning in their graves...
IMO, their last decent Presidential hopefuls were Mondale and Lieberman. Perhaps McCarthy and McGovern. All of which cared more about providing governance according to their lights, than personal aggrandizement.
You know, its funny....the Democrats have become the party of the disenfranchised...liberals, urbanites, minorities...sure we'll take them all say the Dems. The result is that the Democratic party is completely dysfunctional and without a platform.
The Dems have not proposed a meaningful solution to a problem since 1994 (welfare reform). Even the Republicans had the Contract with America that helped them win control of Congress. The Dems have relied solely on bashing the Republicans. Bush proposes Social Security reform, the Dems say his plan is awful. They never propose one of their own.
The Dems won't go anywhere until they develop a platform.
QUOTE(stuckincincy @ Jan 26 2006, 12:38 PM)
Indeed. The recent crop of Dem offerings spit on the concept of a diffused, balanced government as at least I feel the Founders wanted.
They have lost a degree of character, and proceed to marginalize such as Sen. Lieberman.
I hope the reset their compass. Howie and the likes of Hillary, Gore, Leahy, Pelosi. Daschle et al need to learn how to act with decorum. They only stoke flames, not betterment.
Sad. People like H. Humphrey, RFK, Wellstone etc. must be spinning in their graves...
IMO, their last decent Presidential hopefuls were Mondale and Lieberman. Perhaps McCarthy and McGovern. All of which cared more about providing governance according to their lights, than personal aggrandizement.
[right][snapback]584568[/snapback][/right]
They have lost a degree of character, and proceed to marginalize such as Sen. Lieberman.
I hope the reset their compass. Howie and the likes of Hillary, Gore, Leahy, Pelosi. Daschle et al need to learn how to act with decorum. They only stoke flames, not betterment.
Sad. People like H. Humphrey, RFK, Wellstone etc. must be spinning in their graves...
IMO, their last decent Presidential hopefuls were Mondale and Lieberman. Perhaps McCarthy and McGovern. All of which cared more about providing governance according to their lights, than personal aggrandizement.
[right][snapback]584568[/snapback][/right]
In so much as I agree in return, if decorum means to replicate the manner of DeLay, Lott, etc., then we're all missing the point. If shrills were to be counted, I'd agree that the Dems have the current edge, but isn't that always the case as it applies to the minority party? History clearly states it is.
The meanness and the attacks of one's personal character has never been just a single parties tendency. They both play the game and it drives good people away, both in terms of who runs for office, and with regard to voter turnout.
I'll alway maintain that right or left extremes, or even heavily leaning toward one or the other, is a negative that we as a country must avoid, even if we seem incapable of doing so now. Moderate, inclusive, thoughtful, pragmatic action, and with a vision for the future would better serve this nation. We also must get by the immediate gratification syndrome. Sometimes the best solutions or agendas take time to reach fulfillment.
Discussing politics, in general, usually raises my blood pressure and rarely serves any real effect or change on even individuals, let alone our greater society. Yet, I perservere.
I believe strongly as long as the current state of politics in the USA remains, meaning that as long as our elected officials spend far more time on gaining and maintaining their power, rather than on the real business of America, we're going to continue our downward slide as it pertains to economics, health care, our standard of living, etc. Nothing will go unscathed.
This board alone only furthers my point with the name calling, ridiculous clinging to beliefs in definace of all logic and fact, the spinning, etc. Again, neither side here escapes from this and this will continue to be the roadblock that prevents us from properly addressing the real issues of the day.
QUOTE(SpidersWeb @ Jan 26 2006, 01:32 PM)
In so much as I agree in return, if decorum means to replicate the manner of DeLay, Lott, etc., then we're all missing the point. If shrills were to be counted, I'd agree that the Dems have the current edge, but isn't that always the case as it applies to the minority party? History clearly states it is.
The meanness and the attacks of one's personal character has never been just a single parties tendency. They both play the game and it drives good people away, both in terms of who runs for office, and with regard to voter turnout.
I'll alway maintain that right or left extremes, or even heavily leaning toward one or the other, is a negative that we as a country must avoid, even if we seem incapable of doing so now. Moderate, inclusive, thoughtful, pragmatic action, and with a vision for the future would better serve this nation. We also must get by the immediate gratification syndrome. Sometimes the best solutions or agendas take time to reach fulfillment.
Biscussing politics, in general, usually raises my blood pressure and rarely serves any real effect or change on even individuals, let alone our greater society. Yet, I perservere.
I believe strongly as long as the current state of politics in the USA remains, meaning that as long as our elected officials spend far more time on gaining and maintaining their power, rather than on the real business of America, we're going to continue our downward slide as it pertains to economics, health care, our standard of living, etc. Nothing will go unscathed.
This board alone only furthers my point with the name calling, ridiculous clinging to beliefs in definace of all logic and fact, the spinning, etc. Again, neither side here escapes from this and this will continue to be the roadblock that prevents us from properly addressing the real issues of the day.
[right][snapback]584613[/snapback][/right]
The meanness and the attacks of one's personal character has never been just a single parties tendency. They both play the game and it drives good people away, both in terms of who runs for office, and with regard to voter turnout.
I'll alway maintain that right or left extremes, or even heavily leaning toward one or the other, is a negative that we as a country must avoid, even if we seem incapable of doing so now. Moderate, inclusive, thoughtful, pragmatic action, and with a vision for the future would better serve this nation. We also must get by the immediate gratification syndrome. Sometimes the best solutions or agendas take time to reach fulfillment.
Biscussing politics, in general, usually raises my blood pressure and rarely serves any real effect or change on even individuals, let alone our greater society. Yet, I perservere.
I believe strongly as long as the current state of politics in the USA remains, meaning that as long as our elected officials spend far more time on gaining and maintaining their power, rather than on the real business of America, we're going to continue our downward slide as it pertains to economics, health care, our standard of living, etc. Nothing will go unscathed.
This board alone only furthers my point with the name calling, ridiculous clinging to beliefs in definace of all logic and fact, the spinning, etc. Again, neither side here escapes from this and this will continue to be the roadblock that prevents us from properly addressing the real issues of the day.
[right][snapback]584613[/snapback][/right]
You have put forth a thoughtful post.
I would never say, that in my days, things were all that spiffy. What I do see, is the recent aggrandizement, the imparting of "star power" to elected officials..seems to be very much a popularity contest thanks to visual persona. Our rapid communications is a two-edged blade; comtemplation has been seemingly trumped by expediency and a thrill of the moment.
Believe me, there were PLENTY of crumbs in the earlier days of my life. Many, many venous types.
We The People have culpability. Good parents watch out for their young, knowing that in the young mind, what shines and glitters is what is grasped for, and behind the charm is the fishhook. Many adults are going for that glitter nowadays - in politics or in other things. That is not what adults should do.
It is up to the young folk to right the ship. Not the 20 year-old folks, mind. The 30, 40, 50 year-olds... It is your world, to change; no longer mine. I know you shall succeed. FWIW, you shall get my support - and crotchety advice.
QUOTE(SpidersWeb @ Jan 26 2006, 01:32 PM)
This board alone only furthers my point with the name calling, ridiculous clinging to beliefs in definace of all logic and fact, the spinning, etc. Again, neither side here escapes from this and this will continue to be the roadblock that prevents us from properly addressing the real issues of the day.
[right][snapback]584613[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]584613[/snapback][/right]
You mean "Cindy Sheehan's still around!" or "Flightsuit! Halliburton! Nose pick!" aren't real issues of the day?
It's not just on this board. After Katrina, I had discussions with people experienced in disaster relief and FEMA operations about how the systemic and logistical problems that influenced the relief effort were both apolitical and unavoidable in that situation...and still they had to add "By the way, 'your' [sic] boy Bush looks like a !@#$ing idiot through all this."
People who knew the root causes of events still had to blame it on their favorite punching bag for the sake of appearances! 
I think America, as a society, is pretty much doomed. People all over seem totally incapable of a deep understanding of anything...even on the extraordinarily rare occasions they discuss real issues over bull sh-- like the media's "Camp Casey" or spotted owl coverage.
QUOTE(stuckincincy @ Jan 26 2006, 02:24 PM)
It is up to the young folk to right the ship. Not the 20 year-old folks, mind. The 30, 40, 50 year-olds... It is your world, to change; no longer mine. FWIW, you shall get my support - and crotchety advice.
[right][snapback]584653[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]584653[/snapback][/right]
Ya right! Thanks for the lemon...
Between what the Greatest Generation and the Boomers left... I don't want it.
It is broke... And even people like me realize when something is broke this bad... You just sh*t can it.
Think that'll ever happen?
QUOTE(ExiledInIllinois @ Jan 26 2006, 02:51 PM)
Ya right! Thanks for the lemon...
Between what the Greatest Generation and the Boomers left... I don't want it.
It is broke... And even people like me realize when something is broke this bad... You just sh*t can it.
Think that'll ever happen?
[right][snapback]584690[/snapback][/right]
Between what the Greatest Generation and the Boomers left... I don't want it.
It is broke... And even people like me realize when something is broke this bad... You just sh*t can it.
Think that'll ever happen?
[right][snapback]584690[/snapback][/right]
It's not broke that bad. At risk of lecturing you (which I don't mind), look around. Most of your fellow citizens may seem like so many rats. Well, here's where you come in, to do your part. Beat a gentle, small tattoo on their bean when you see apathy or snotty deportment. Don't get shot, though.
Baby steps. Push come to shove, most Americans aren't inclined to harshness and actually are decent sorts.
For example, I have pummeled you from time to time and the results are so far reasonably encouraging.
Like I said - I'll be pushing daisies anon and it's your ballgame, to decide what's gonna be what...
Here's another perspective:
democrats?
Like many arguments here, it depends on what you mean by the word "is"....
I do find it interesting, after a quick perusal of the subjects on the first two pages here, that the first post about Abramoff is the tried and true--and most common argument here, "the dems did it too" or "the dems are worse."
Abramoff is closely tied to the republican leadership and the White House. This is truly a republican scandal.
That said, I don't trust either party. I think the dems play the money game too; it's just that the republicans have taken it up quite a few notches.
K Street
democrats?
Like many arguments here, it depends on what you mean by the word "is"....
I do find it interesting, after a quick perusal of the subjects on the first two pages here, that the first post about Abramoff is the tried and true--and most common argument here, "the dems did it too" or "the dems are worse."
Abramoff is closely tied to the republican leadership and the White House. This is truly a republican scandal.
That said, I don't trust either party. I think the dems play the money game too; it's just that the republicans have taken it up quite a few notches.
K Street
QUOTE(KRC @ Jan 26 2006, 08:56 AM)
I am waiting for the "yeah...Dems may do it, but Republicans are worse" response.
[right][snapback]584304[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]584304[/snapback][/right]
Are we allowed to differentiate between legal and illegal contibutions or would that be too technical or partisan of a distinction?
QUOTE(stuckincincy @ Jan 26 2006, 03:10 PM)
It's not broke that bad. At risk of lecturing you (which I don't mind), look around. Most of your fellow citizens may seem like so many rats. Well, here's where you come in, to do your part. Beat a gentle, small tattoo on their bean when you see apathy or snotty deportment. Don't get shot, though.
Baby steps. Push come to shove, most Americans aren't inclined to harshness and actually are decent sorts.
For example, I have pummeled you from time to time and the results are so far reasonably encouraging.
Like I said - I'll be pushing daisies anon and it's your ballgame, to decide what's gonna be what...
[right][snapback]584722[/snapback][/right]
Baby steps. Push come to shove, most Americans aren't inclined to harshness and actually are decent sorts.
For example, I have pummeled you from time to time and the results are so far reasonably encouraging.
Like I said - I'll be pushing daisies anon and it's your ballgame, to decide what's gonna be what...
[right][snapback]584722[/snapback][/right]
Thanks for the sage advice.
Agreed... But, don't trust me with that... I would bring back the WPA.
I have always said, you are the one conservative here that I can always find a way to agree with.
But just don't leave me with crap... You still got a lot of pummeling to do out there too!
QUOTE(Mickey @ Jan 26 2006, 03:33 PM)
Are we allowed to differentiate between legal and illegal contibutions or would that be too technical or partisan of a distinction?
[right][snapback]584768[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]584768[/snapback][/right]
Depends. I lived in western PA during the days of "AbScam John" Murtha, D-PA, Johnstown. IIRC, he was a so-called "unindicted co-conspiritor" and given a pat on the head by the Dem-controlled House The tv coverage of him stuffing the cash in his jacket was pretty funny to view - "a mere mistake, a plan to uncover corruption"...
QUOTE(stuckincincy @ Jan 26 2006, 10:19 AM)
No disagreement, Pasta. If indictment is proffered and guilt is found, so be it.
I was flipping channels this A.M. Howard Dean was on the Today Show, being interviewed by Katy Couric via video link. Howard said there were no, none, nada Democrats that had anything to do with Abramoff. Poor Katy bugged her eyes a bit, and said, "well, we will check into that".
[right][snapback]584390[/snapback][/right]
I was flipping channels this A.M. Howard Dean was on the Today Show, being interviewed by Katy Couric via video link. Howard said there were no, none, nada Democrats that had anything to do with Abramoff. Poor Katy bugged her eyes a bit, and said, "well, we will check into that".
[right][snapback]584390[/snapback][/right]
The distinction being made is between getting money from Abramoff and getting money from Indian tribes that were his clients. So what Dean said might be technically true but it could be a distinction without a difference. Those tribes that were his clients actually gave more money to democrats before they were his clients. Once he signed them up, he began moving as much of their money to Republicans and away from democrats as he could convince them to move.
The real distinction is between legal and illegal. I would be surprised if no democrats went down by the time this is all over. At present though, I beleive every person who has been convicted, pled guilty, indicted, named as a target by a prosecutor or a named as a person of interest in an investigation in connection with Abramoff is a republican. Of course, he only just started singing so who knows what the final republican crook vs. democratic crook score card will look like.
QUOTE(ExiledInIllinois @ Jan 26 2006, 03:37 PM)
Thanks for the sage advice.
Agreed... But, don't trust me with that... I would bring back the WPA.
I have always said, you are the one conservative here that I can always find a way to agree with.
But just don't leave me with crap... You still got a lot of pummeling to do out there too!
[right][snapback]584779[/snapback][/right]
Agreed... But, don't trust me with that... I would bring back the WPA.
I have always said, you are the one conservative here that I can always find a way to agree with.
But just don't leave me with crap... You still got a lot of pummeling to do out there too!
[right][snapback]584779[/snapback][/right]
Thanks for the kind words. To me, no less, a former member of the IBEW and the Amalgameted Meatcutters and Butchers of North America.
Someday, I'll relate some hilarious happenstances when I was management negotiating a UAW auto contract, as well as the day-to-day stuff.
My Engineering Lab was next door to the UAW Work (Jerk) Center - I knew every elected committeman, Prez, Chairman, etc. We drank together a couple of times a week, and every month or so we mgt/union types would punch each other out. What fun!
One good memory was when the Shop Chairman and the General Superintentdent of Manufacturing started to seriously smack it out at the last pass of the Trim/Chassis/Final line, just before Final QA Inspection. Hourly and Salary alike knew that is was inevitable - they hated each other's guts. They were both big, big men and good battlers; they broke each other's jaws before Security showed up to break it up.
But no lingering problems. No suits, charges, complaints. Just a couple of old bulls duking it out.
QUOTE(stuckincincy @ Jan 26 2006, 03:49 PM)
Depends. I lived in western PA during the days of "AbScam John" Murtha, D-PA, Johnstown. IIRC, he was a so-called "unindicted co-conspiritor" and given a pat on the head by the Dem-controlled House The tv coverage of him stuffing the cash in his jacket was pretty funny to view - "a mere mistake, a plan to uncover corruption"...
[right][snapback]584792[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]584792[/snapback][/right]
The reason he was unindicted is because the grand jury cleared him. The tape of Murtha, rather than showing him putting money in his coat, actually shows him saying "Not interested" when they offered him the money.
Of course, don't let the facts get into the way of a good smear because, after all, he deserves to have his character assassinated for having the temerity to disagree with a conservative. How dare he?
QUOTE(Mickey @ Jan 26 2006, 04:40 PM)
The reason he was unindicted is because the grand jury cleared him. The tape of Murtha, rather than showing him putting money in his coat, actually shows him saying "Not interested" when they offered him the money.
Of course, don't let the facts get into the way of a good smear because, after all, he deserves to have his character assassinated for having the temerity to disagree with a conservative. How dare he?
[right][snapback]584858[/snapback][/right]
Of course, don't let the facts get into the way of a good smear because, after all, he deserves to have his character assassinated for having the temerity to disagree with a conservative. How dare he?
[right][snapback]584858[/snapback][/right]
Sure about that? ALL the film...? ALL the stink?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Pa...L20060113d.html
Do you imply that Johnny is as pure as the proverbial driven snow? And what camp decided not to proffer an indictment? works both ways, eh?
Are you sure you are not defending a crummy, in office forever old time pork meister?
I'd think more of you if you stopped this "my side is saintly - your side are satanic" bs.
QUOTE(stuckincincy @ Jan 26 2006, 05:17 PM)
Sure about that? ALL the film...? ALL the stink?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Pa...L20060113d.html
Do you imply that Johnny is as pure as the proverbial driven snow? And what camp decided not to proffer an indictment? works both ways, eh?
Are you sure you are not defending a crummy, in office forever old time pork meister?
I'd think more of you if you stopped this "my side is saintly - your side are satanic" bs.
[right][snapback]584894[/snapback][/right]
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Pa...L20060113d.html
Do you imply that Johnny is as pure as the proverbial driven snow? And what camp decided not to proffer an indictment? works both ways, eh?
Are you sure you are not defending a crummy, in office forever old time pork meister?
I'd think more of you if you stopped this "my side is saintly - your side are satanic" bs.
[right][snapback]584894[/snapback][/right]
A grand jury is not in a "camp". The prosecutor presents evidence to grand jurors who receive a jury summons in the mail just like any juror. Duh.
I am not absolving, sliming or accusing anyone. You, on the other hand, have tried, convicted and slimed Murtha on a charge objective persons who actually heard the evidence cleared him of decades ago. You accused him of putting money in his coat on tape. Not true. Is there ever a point where facts matter? How often were you complaining about Murtha before he came out against the war? Yeah, I thought so.
Lawyers joke about being able to indict a ham sandwich. In front of a grand jury, the only evidence presented is by the prosecutor. The only laywer there is the prosecutor. The defendant whose indictment is being considered is not allowed to defend himself at all. Under those conditions, you can pretty much indict anyone for anything. If you can't get an indictment of a defendant from a grand jury, it is usually because the guy is so innocent it isn't even funny.
Anyone, anyone who disagrees about this war has to be destroyed. They can't simply be wrong or reasonably differ, they must be obliterated. Nice.
QUOTE(Mickey @ Jan 26 2006, 04:40 PM)
The reason he was unindicted is because the grand jury cleared him.
[right][snapback]584858[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]584858[/snapback][/right]
Not that I want to get involved in this ridiculous discussion in ANY way...but I have a nit-picky technical question.
Does "unindicted" specifically mean that the grand jury clears someone, or does it also cover investigations that are not brought in front of the grand jury for whatever reason? Common sense would dictate it covers both (as the end result in each case is no indictment)...but as a legal technical term does it specifically indicate the case was brought before the grand jury and dismissed?
Reason I ask is, stuckincincy's use of the phrase "unindicted co-conspirator" bugged the hell out of me, as really the only way I can imagine someone being an "unindicted co-conspirator" is if the case never goes to the grand jury (because if you've got enough evidence to label someone a "co-conspirator", you've got enough to get an indictment). If the term "unindicted" specifically requires presentation to the grand jury, "unindicted co-conspirator" is even bigger bull sh-- than I'd originally thought.
And "co-conspirator"? Isn't that just a "conspirator"? What the !@#$ kind of stupidity is "co-conspirator" anyway?
QUOTE(Crap Throwing Monkey @ Jan 26 2006, 09:02 PM)
Not that I want to get involved in this ridiculous discussion in ANY way...but I have a nit-picky technical question.
Does "unindicted" specifically mean that the grand jury clears someone, or does it also cover investigations that are not brought in front of the grand jury for whatever reason? Common sense would dictate it covers both (as the end result in each case is no indictment)...but as a legal technical term does it specifically indicate the case was brought before the grand jury and dismissed?
Reason I ask is, stuckincincy's use of the phrase "unindicted co-conspirator" bugged the hell out of me, as really the only way I can imagine someone being an "unindicted co-conspirator" is if the case never goes to the grand jury (because if you've got enough evidence to label someone a "co-conspirator", you've got enough to get an indictment). If the term "unindicted" specifically requires presentation to the grand jury, "unindicted co-conspirator" is even bigger bull sh-- than I'd originally thought.
And "co-conspirator"? Isn't that just a "conspirator"? What the !@#$ kind of stupidity is "co-conspirator" anyway?
[right][snapback]585053[/snapback][/right]
Does "unindicted" specifically mean that the grand jury clears someone, or does it also cover investigations that are not brought in front of the grand jury for whatever reason? Common sense would dictate it covers both (as the end result in each case is no indictment)...but as a legal technical term does it specifically indicate the case was brought before the grand jury and dismissed?
Reason I ask is, stuckincincy's use of the phrase "unindicted co-conspirator" bugged the hell out of me, as really the only way I can imagine someone being an "unindicted co-conspirator" is if the case never goes to the grand jury (because if you've got enough evidence to label someone a "co-conspirator", you've got enough to get an indictment). If the term "unindicted" specifically requires presentation to the grand jury, "unindicted co-conspirator" is even bigger bull sh-- than I'd originally thought.
And "co-conspirator"? Isn't that just a "conspirator"? What the !@#$ kind of stupidity is "co-conspirator" anyway?
[right][snapback]585053[/snapback][/right]
The term has no official or even technical meaning or significance that I am aware of. You can refer to me as "unindicted" because I have never been indicted, yet.
In this particular case it means they went in front of a GJ, presented the evidence, asked for an indictment and the GJ failed to return one. That is my understanding as to what happened with Murtha. Most prosecutors can tell when their case is so weak that they wouldn't even be able to get an indictment and so don't bother taking it before the GJ. Its considered to be pretty embarassing to lose in front of a GJ. Even in cases where they didn't try to get an indictment, that is just as telling as a jury refusing to issue one. It usually means the prosecutor decided to save himself the embarassment of having a GJ balk on him.
"Co-conspirator" is kind of redundant. Conspiracy charges are best when used against organized criminal enterprises. It helps you get around the type of proof problems you often get with gangs and the mob. They are subject to abuse though.
QUOTE(KRC @ Jan 26 2006, 08:56 AM)
I am waiting for the "yeah...Dems may do it, but Republicans are worse" response.
[right][snapback]584304[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]584304[/snapback][/right]
Yeah, they both may do it but the party in power leads the corruption (repub). Remember the check cashing thing of the early 90’s(Dems)
QUOTE(ExiledInIllinois @ Jan 26 2006, 02:51 PM)
Ya right! Thanks for the lemon...
Between what the Greatest Generation and the Boomers left... I don't want it.
It is broke... And even people like me realize when something is broke this bad... You just sh*t can it.
Think that'll ever happen?
[right][snapback]584690[/snapback][/right]
Between what the Greatest Generation and the Boomers left... I don't want it.
It is broke... And even people like me realize when something is broke this bad... You just sh*t can it.
Think that'll ever happen?
[right][snapback]584690[/snapback][/right]
And there's your problem in a nutshell. Lazy, lazy, lazy. You give up too easy. Did the greatest generation ever give up after the Nazis bombed Pearl Harbor................
QUOTE(Chef Jim @ Jan 27 2006, 03:45 PM)
And there's your problem in a nutshell. Lazy, lazy, lazy. You give up too easy. Did the greatest generation ever give up after the Nazis bombed Pearl Harbor................
[right][snapback]585914[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]585914[/snapback][/right]
I'm not giving up... I just want to scrap it all and start new...
"War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one."
Anyway, it was the Germans.
Forget it, you're rolling.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.