Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, May 24, 2006.
Wow, this is a very interesting twist. There are two really intriguing stories here.
1. Dennis Hastert was very quick to make the congressional immunity defense for Jefferson. Was at least part of his motivation because he knew he was under investigation?
2. The investigation is leaked a day after Hastert publicly makes the immunity claim. Is that coincidental or an attempt to discredit him?
Reading the news this AM leads me to believe that this could be a Dan Rather type bashing or there could be some credibility to this as it is all linked to Abrahamoff...the denials are pretty convincing, however it will be years before we figure out and get to the bottom of all this corruption... there needs to be some very strong legislation to change the way business is done in DC...
Ahh No he's not:
Again, the liberal media basis, lying to you
Or are the Republicans lying?
Are you seriously going to believe the "DailyIndia" website (all the news about India) over the Hill who has been reporting on Congress for years?
And why are you looking at the DailyIndia anyways, where do you find this stuff?
It is a UPI story and it appears to be legit. It was posted on a link on the liberal DemocraticUnderground website.
Was also reported at ABC - Brian Ross. The noose tightens and Abramoff keeps singing his heart out. You go Jack!
Again you are confusing what the media wants to be true and the actual truth:
Hastert Legal Letter To ABCNEWS President Westin
7 West 66th St.
New York, NY 10023
RE: False Story Regarding Justice Department Investigation
Dear Mr. Westin, Stephanopoulos, and Mr. Ross:
At 7:25 p.m., the Statement of the Department of Justice confirmed:
Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department.Ă˘â‚¬
At 10:21 p.m., you wrote:
Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation,Ă˘â‚¬ one federal official said tonight.Ă˘â‚¬
This statement is false, and your republication of it after actual knowledge of its falsity constitutes libel and defamation. ABC NewsĂ˘â‚¬â„˘ continued publication of this false information, after having actual knowledge of its falsity, evidences a specific and malicious intent to injure and damage Speaker HastertĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s reputation by continued repetition of a known falsehood.
We will take any and all actions necessary to rectify the harm ABC has caused and to hold those at ABC responsible for their conduct.
Please advise regarding who will accept service of process to remedy this intentional falsehood.
Very truly yours,
J. Randolph Evans
Stefan C. Passantino
Counsel to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert
Perhaps Dan Rather moved to ABC?
:blahblah: :blahblah: Yes...take his lawyers word for it. :rofl:
only time will tell whos telling the truth but remember...your party's track record isn't very good lately.
YEAH there is that Republican Congressman they have on tape taking bribes......Ohh wait, he's a Democrat
So the FBI and the Justice Department say that they are not investigating the Speaker, but ABC (a/k/a Disney) they are trustworthy on this stuff:
or maybe not:
ABC news tells workers to back Kerry
Maybe they are not investigating him, but the guy is dirty. Hastert writes Gale Norton a letter urging her to block an Indian casino opposed by rival tribes of Abramoff just one week after the lobbyist held a fundraiser for Hasterts political action committee. Joining Hastert in this letter were, Tom Delay and Roy Blount, who also received contributions from Abramoff. Oh, I know just a coincidence. Congressional ethics rules require lawmakers to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest in accepting political money. This requirement was made famous during the Keating Five Scandal. There goes that history repeating itself theory. Hastert for two years failed to disclose the use of Abramoff's restaurant the week before his letter or to reimburse for its use which is legally required. A lobbyist, V. Sibbonson, says "I do this for a living and I've never seen a letter like this before. It is incredibly unusual for that group of people, who do not normally weigh in on Indian issues, to express such a strong opinion not in any of their home states."
So, go ahead and defend this guy. IMO, he better have strong support from his constituents or he's gone. Not to mention Roy Blount.
Duke Stir was not a Democrat. He's the only one convicted isn't he? Not defending this jackass, but he's just one of the many in a culture of corruption. And the real sparks will start flying in 2007.
I'm with those who say throw them ALL out...save one or two.
Separate names with a comma.