Mickey Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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". 584390[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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! 584779[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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"... 584792[/snapback] 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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? 584858[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 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. 584894[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 The reason he was unindicted is because the grand jury cleared him. 584858[/snapback] 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 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? 585053[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I am waiting for the "yeah...Dems may do it, but Republicans are worse" response. 584304[/snapback] 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 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? 584690[/snapback] 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................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 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................ 585914[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts