Jesse Jackson Jr. is Candidate Number 5

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I think we're starting to see the clear pattern of Democrat Party corruption. How many more Dems are going to be implicated in this? I doubt Obama was involved but this is pretty much the norm for Chicago politics so I hope its not what we see in the whitehouse.

Then WTF did you infer it and WTF is it in your sig?
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
This guy is not indicative of the Democratic party. He could just as easily be of the Republican party. Would you guys defend him in that case? I don't think so. So why try to attack Democrats for having the same party affiliation as this crook? Most Democrats don't like him.

The broad-brushing I see on this board from virtually everyone just fucking sickens me. It's like everyone here is three or four years old and racist. You are all a bunch of tools; kill yourselves.

It's hilarious you whine about people "broad-brushing", and yet you do the same. Plenty of people here have condemned crooked politicians of both parties, so calm the heck down.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW One of the big unions looks to be involved in this. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Would be great to see a judge kick out the union leadership and put them under the federal eye ala the Teamsters and also ban them from political contributions for set number of years.

Coming from a Republican, your sig is pretty stupid. The Clinton years were a period of peace and prosperity.
They were also full of scandals... Obama is just getting a head start.

BTW Nothing Clinton did had any lasting effect, outside of Kosovo. And I mean NOTHING.
Surplus was gone in less than two years. All that peace was just an illusion, Islamic radicals were waging war against us and we just ignored them till 9-11. His economic miracle was based on the tech bubble that burst as he was leaving office.

Over all they were good years, but as even Obama said, Clinton did nothing to change the trajectory of the country. Look at how everyone is talking about the 'Reagan era' coming to an end. No one will ever talk about the 'Clinton era.'

BTW2 the sig is based on Obama picking all the Clinton people. Obama promised 'change' and instead we are getting retreads.

Man, you are stupid.

Actually he does not come across as a stupid person, just some one who is blinkered and/or blinded by his partisanship which seems to bypass his logical circuits.

For e.g., the surplus was built up over Clintons presidency and, yes, was gone in 2 years. But he conveniently forget how and why it went in less than 2 years. His President gave away some of it (to 'his base'?) and squandered the rest and then proceeded to squander away any future money in the country as well.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
At this point in time, I have to take the position that Jesse Jackson Jr. is not a target of this investigation at face value. Yet already, even before 1/4 of the facts are in, various GOP apologists are inventing all kinds of conspiracy theories out of thin air.

Long before this latest Blahojevich erupted over his allegedly trying to sell the Obama senate seat, it was apparent that Blago was in plenty of other hot water regarding corruption. And given the fact that Fitgerald is the prosecutor in this case, I have to believe its based on real evidence and is not entrapment. And if we know anything about past Fitzgerald behavior, Fitz is not given to trying his cases in the court of public opinion or besmirching the reputations of those only tangentially involved.

Which is exactly what this thread is becoming on P&N. Wild speculation and nothing more.

But since Blagojevich is under a cloud of suspicion, I can only hope he is removed as Illinois Governor by impeachment, and replaced by his LT. Governor who has a past record as a reformer, before Blagojevich
can name a Senator to replace the Obama seat. No matter what happen, the GOP is not going to get to fill the seat with a republican, so rant on.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW One of the big unions looks to be involved in this. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Would be great to see a judge kick out the union leadership and put them under the federal eye ala the Teamsters and also ban them from political contributions for set number of years.

Coming from a Republican, your sig is pretty stupid. The Clinton years were a period of peace and prosperity.
They were also full of scandals... Obama is just getting a head start.

BTW Nothing Clinton did had any lasting effect, outside of Kosovo. And I mean NOTHING.
Surplus was gone in less than two years. All that peace was just an illusion, Islamic radicals were waging war against us and we just ignored them till 9-11. His economic miracle was based on the tech bubble that burst as he was leaving office.

Over all they were good years, but as even Obama said, Clinton did nothing to change the trajectory of the country. Look at how everyone is talking about the 'Reagan era' coming to an end. No one will ever talk about the 'Clinton era.'

BTW2 the sig is based on Obama picking all the Clinton people. Obama promised 'change' and instead we are getting retreads.

Man, you are stupid.

Actually he does not come across as a stupid person, just some one who is blinkered and/or blinded by his partisanship which seems to bypass his logical circuits.

For e.g., the surplus was built up over Clintons presidency and, yes, was gone in 2 years. But he conveniently forget how and why it went in less than 2 years. His President gave away some of it (to 'his base'?) and squandered the rest and then proceeded to squander away any future money in the country as well.


It is like the blind leading the blind. Those surpluses werent sustainable in any way shape or form. Clinton could have run a third term and still run into a deficit. Because these guys budget like the good times will never end. When it comes down like all periods of growth do the govt is left with a deficit or in most cases a bigger deficit.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Genx87
It is like the blind leading the blind. Those surpluses werent sustainable in any way shape or form.

Clinton could have run a third term and still run into a deficit. Because these guys budget like the good times will never end. When it comes down like all periods of growth do the govt is left with a deficit or in most cases a bigger deficit.

You'll never ever put the blame on your hero till the day you die eh?

Just skip right on the by the past 8 years like it never happened isn't going to cut it.

How old are you?
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW One of the big unions looks to be involved in this. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Would be great to see a judge kick out the union leadership and put them under the federal eye ala the Teamsters and also ban them from political contributions for set number of years.

Coming from a Republican, your sig is pretty stupid. The Clinton years were a period of peace and prosperity.
They were also full of scandals... Obama is just getting a head start.

BTW Nothing Clinton did had any lasting effect, outside of Kosovo. And I mean NOTHING.
Surplus was gone in less than two years. All that peace was just an illusion, Islamic radicals were waging war against us and we just ignored them till 9-11. His economic miracle was based on the tech bubble that burst as he was leaving office.

Over all they were good years, but as even Obama said, Clinton did nothing to change the trajectory of the country. Look at how everyone is talking about the 'Reagan era' coming to an end. No one will ever talk about the 'Clinton era.'

BTW2 the sig is based on Obama picking all the Clinton people. Obama promised 'change' and instead we are getting retreads.

Man, you are stupid.

Actually from here it looks like you're the one who's stupid. First of all, you totally derailed the thread with a completely off-topic remark about an irrelevant signature. Then ProfJohn responds to you in a civilized fashion explaining why he feels the way he feels, and all you have to say is "you're stupid"?

Grow up, kid.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW One of the big unions looks to be involved in this. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Would be great to see a judge kick out the union leadership and put them under the federal eye ala the Teamsters and also ban them from political contributions for set number of years.

Coming from a Republican, your sig is pretty stupid. The Clinton years were a period of peace and prosperity.
They were also full of scandals... Obama is just getting a head start.

BTW Nothing Clinton did had any lasting effect, outside of Kosovo. And I mean NOTHING.
Surplus was gone in less than two years. All that peace was just an illusion, Islamic radicals were waging war against us and we just ignored them till 9-11. His economic miracle was based on the tech bubble that burst as he was leaving office.

Over all they were good years, but as even Obama said, Clinton did nothing to change the trajectory of the country. Look at how everyone is talking about the 'Reagan era' coming to an end. No one will ever talk about the 'Clinton era.'

BTW2 the sig is based on Obama picking all the Clinton people. Obama promised 'change' and instead we are getting retreads.

Man, you are stupid.

Actually he does not come across as a stupid person, just some one who is blinkered and/or blinded by his partisanship which seems to bypass his logical circuits.

For e.g., the surplus was built up over Clintons presidency and, yes, was gone in 2 years. But he conveniently forget how and why it went in less than 2 years. His President gave away some of it (to 'his base'?) and squandered the rest and then proceeded to squander away any future money in the country as well.

Surpluses that could only be sustained if you ignore the recession that Clinton dumped onto Bush's lap.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I think we're starting to see the clear pattern of Democrat Party corruption. How many more Dems are going to be implicated in this? I doubt Obama was involved but this is pretty much the norm for Chicago politics so I hope its not what we see in the whitehouse.

-------------------------
Obama: Bringing Chicago Political values to Washington.

What if this is what we see in the whitehouse as you say in your sig?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
It is like the blind leading the blind. Those surpluses werent sustainable in any way shape or form.

Clinton could have run a third term and still run into a deficit. Because these guys budget like the good times will never end. When it comes down like all periods of growth do the govt is left with a deficit or in most cases a bigger deficit.

You'll never ever put the blame on your hero till the day you die eh?

Just skip right on the by the past 8 years like it never happened isn't going to cut it.

How old are you?

Dave i understand your lack of brain capacity prevents you from thinking beyond sound bites and slogans. But this isnt a terrible difficult idea to grasp. The govt runs on projections for the upcoming year. They guess what the economy will do and what the revenues from taxes will be. When the economy tanks those revenues go down and the budget runs a deficit. See the local states situation for a great real world example.

Are you dumb enough to tell us if Clinton had a third term he would never have run a deficit even as the economy was crumbling around him in his last year in office?

To believe that you would have to be dumber than previously thought.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW One of the big unions looks to be involved in this. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Would be great to see a judge kick out the union leadership and put them under the federal eye ala the Teamsters and also ban them from political contributions for set number of years.

Coming from a Republican, your sig is pretty stupid. The Clinton years were a period of peace and prosperity.
They were also full of scandals... Obama is just getting a head start.

BTW Nothing Clinton did had any lasting effect, outside of Kosovo. And I mean NOTHING.
Surplus was gone in less than two years. All that peace was just an illusion, Islamic radicals were waging war against us and we just ignored them till 9-11. His economic miracle was based on the tech bubble that burst as he was leaving office.

Over all they were good years, but as even Obama said, Clinton did nothing to change the trajectory of the country. Look at how everyone is talking about the 'Reagan era' coming to an end. No one will ever talk about the 'Clinton era.'

BTW2 the sig is based on Obama picking all the Clinton people. Obama promised 'change' and instead we are getting retreads.

Man, you are stupid.

Actually he does not come across as a stupid person, just some one who is blinkered and/or blinded by his partisanship which seems to bypass his logical circuits.

For e.g., the surplus was built up over Clintons presidency and, yes, was gone in 2 years. But he conveniently forget how and why it went in less than 2 years. His President gave away some of it (to 'his base'?) and squandered the rest and then proceeded to squander away any future money in the country as well.

Surpluses that could only be sustained if you ignore the recession that Clinton dumped onto Bush's lap.

Don't waste your time. A false sense of peace and security coupled with wealth that only existed on paper is the only real path to differentiating Clinton from the rest of the presidential forgettables. Do you honestly think that trying to explain his pointless presidency to them is going to change their minds?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
It is like the blind leading the blind. Those surpluses werent sustainable in any way shape or form.

Clinton could have run a third term and still run into a deficit. Because these guys budget like the good times will never end. When it comes down like all periods of growth do the govt is left with a deficit or in most cases a bigger deficit.

You'll never ever put the blame on your hero till the day you die eh?

Just skip right on the by the past 8 years like it never happened isn't going to cut it.

How old are you?

Dave i understand your lack of brain capacity prevents you from thinking beyond sound bites and slogans. But this isnt a terrible difficult idea to grasp. The govt runs on projections for the upcoming year. They guess what the economy will do and what the revenues from taxes will be. When the economy tanks those revenues go down and the budget runs a deficit. See the local states situation for a great real world example.

Are you dumb enough to tell us if Clinton had a third term he would never have run a deficit even as the economy was crumbling around him in his last year in office?

To believe that you would have to be dumber than previously thought.

For years after Bush took office you guys blamed Clinton for the recession.

You deny that?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
It is like the blind leading the blind. Those surpluses werent sustainable in any way shape or form.

Clinton could have run a third term and still run into a deficit. Because these guys budget like the good times will never end. When it comes down like all periods of growth do the govt is left with a deficit or in most cases a bigger deficit.

You'll never ever put the blame on your hero till the day you die eh?

Just skip right on the by the past 8 years like it never happened isn't going to cut it.

How old are you?

Dave i understand your lack of brain capacity prevents you from thinking beyond sound bites and slogans. But this isnt a terrible difficult idea to grasp. The govt runs on projections for the upcoming year. They guess what the economy will do and what the revenues from taxes will be. When the economy tanks those revenues go down and the budget runs a deficit. See the local states situation for a great real world example.

Are you dumb enough to tell us if Clinton had a third term he would never have run a deficit even as the economy was crumbling around him in his last year in office?

To believe that you would have to be dumber than previously thought.

For years after Bush took office you guys blamed Clinton for the recession.

You deny that?

I dont blame presidents for recessions unless they do something directly because they generally dont have a whole lot of control over them. Why would I blame Clinton for the downfall of the tech bubble?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jbourne77

Surpluses that could only be sustained if you ignore the recession that Clinton dumped onto Bush's lap.

Don't waste your time. A false sense of peace and security coupled with wealth that only existed on paper is the only real path to differentiating Clinton from the rest of the presidential forgettables. Do you honestly think that trying to explain his pointless presidency to them is going to change their minds?[/quote]

Wow, now Clinton's 8 years was "pointless presidency".

What do you call Bush's presidency with the what he has done to this country and leaving it in this shape?
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Wow, now Clinton's 8 years was "pointless presidency".

What do you call Bush's presidency with the what he has done to this country and leaving it in this shape?

Why do you need to discuss everything in terms of Bush? Yeah, he was a poor president. Good job, Captain Obvious. Now see if you can carry on an intelligent discussion about *anything else* without framing it up under Bush?

Can't do it? Didn't think so.

And your quoting sucks.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Jesse Jackson, Jr. has made it clear and emphatic that he is not "a target" - after he called Fitzgerald's office.

Denialville has bipartisan representatives...

Senator Ted Stevens, whose indictment followed the Alaska FBI searches by 23 months, maintained that they weren't interested in him for all that time, then that he was innocent after he was finally indicted late last July. He rushed his trial because he claimed he would be exonerated.

Alaska's Congressman Don Young has made similar protestations of innocence, but has already spent $1.1 million or more in campaign funds on attorneys. It helped all those Wasilla fundamentalists vote for him in clear conscience to secure his 50% victory in his 19th reelection. It helped that his opponent is Jewish, those "Christ killers."

William Jefferson denied he'd done anything wrong even after the discovery of $90,000 in marked money in his freezer. Constituents looked the other way and voted for him two years ago and in this year's primary. Finally Democrats split their ticket to help minority Republicans get rid of him.

Larry Craig has denied claims for years that he chronically sought sex in public toilets.

John Edwards denied an affair, then denied paternity.

Sarah Palin claimed she hadn't done anything wrong in Troopergate, she and her team refused to interview with the legislative investigator, then claimed that a damning report "exonerated" her.

They're all reading from the same book.

 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Jesse Jackson, Jr. has made it clear and emphatic that he is not "a target" - after he called Fitzgerald's office.

Denialville has bipartisan representatives...

Senator Ted Stevens, whose indictment followed the Alaska FBI searches by 23 months, maintained that they weren't interested in him for all that time, then that he was innocent after he was finally indicted late last July. He rushed his trial because he claimed he would be exonerated.

Alaska's Congressman Don Young has made similar protestations of innocence, but has already spent $1.1 million or more in campaign funds on attorneys. It helped all those Wasilla fundamentalists vote for him in clear conscience to secure his 50% victory in his 19th reelection. It helped that his opponent is Jewish, those "Christ killers."

William Jefferson denied he'd done anything wrong even after the discovery of $90,000 in marked money in his freezer. Constituents looked the other way and voted for him two years ago and in this year's primary. Finally Democrats split their ticket to help minority Republicans get rid of him.

Larry Craig has denied claims for years that he chronically sought sex in public toilets.

John Edwards denied an affair, then denied paternity.

Sarah Palin claimed she hadn't done anything wrong in Troopergate, she and her team refused to interview with the legislative investigator, then claimed that a damning report "exonerated" her.

They're all reading from the same book.

That about sums it up. Nice post :thumbsup:

Of course, this doesn't imply that denial = guilt; it just implies... well, squat actually.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Jesse Jackson, Jr. has made it clear and emphatic that he is not "a target" - after he called Fitzgerald's office.

Denialville has bipartisan representatives...

Senator Ted Stevens, whose indictment followed the Alaska FBI searches by 23 months, maintained that they weren't interested in him for all that time, then that he was innocent after he was finally indicted late last July. He rushed his trial because he claimed he would be exonerated.

Alaska's Congressman Don Young has made similar protestations of innocence, but has already spent $1.1 million or more in campaign funds on attorneys. It helped all those Wasilla fundamentalists vote for him in clear conscience to secure his 50% victory in his 19th reelection. It helped that his opponent is Jewish, those "Christ killers."

William Jefferson denied he'd done anything wrong even after the discovery of $90,000 in marked money in his freezer. Constituents looked the other way and voted for him two years ago and in this year's primary. Finally Democrats split their ticket to help minority Republicans get rid of him.

Larry Craig has denied claims for years that he chronically sought sex in public toilets.

John Edwards denied an affair, then denied paternity.

Sarah Palin claimed she hadn't done anything wrong in Troopergate, she and her team refused to interview with the legislative investigator, then claimed that a damning report "exonerated" her.

They're all reading from the same book.

They all denied their guilt, but there is one difference between Jackson and the others you named.

In his investigation of Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald showed us he's a good investigator, and he doesn't tell all he knows when he first announces his legal actions. So far, he has not said anything to suggest that Jackson did anything wrong, and unlike the others you named, no one else has produced ANY evidence to suggest that he did.

With all the media attention, that could change quickly, but until it does, he's entitled to a presumtion of innocence.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,676
2,430
126
Regardless of how this investigation comes out, it's pretty clear Jesse Jackson, Jr's political future is irreparably damaged. The taint of this means he'll never get the senate seat, whether by appointment or later election.

It's probably also true that no matter how this comes out (unless he ends up in jail) Jackson should have no problem hanging onto his House seat.

Gotta love Illinois politics-it makes the rest of the world look so much better.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Actually he does not come across as a stupid person, just some one who is blinkered and/or blinded by his partisanship which seems to bypass his logical circuits.

For e.g., the surplus was built up over Clintons presidency and, yes, was gone in 2 years. But he conveniently forget how and why it went in less than 2 years. His President gave away some of it (to 'his base'?) and squandered the rest and then proceeded to squander away any future money in the country as well.

Surpluses that could only be sustained if you ignore the recession that Clinton dumped onto Bush's lap.

Proof? The economy has been in the shitter for a long time and only recently was it 'officially' termed a recession. Do you have a link that backs up this Clinton recession claim?
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
It is like the blind leading the blind. Those surpluses werent sustainable in any way shape or form.

Clinton could have run a third term and still run into a deficit. Because these guys budget like the good times will never end. When it comes down like all periods of growth do the govt is left with a deficit or in most cases a bigger deficit.

You'll never ever put the blame on your hero till the day you die eh?

Just skip right on the by the past 8 years like it never happened isn't going to cut it.

How old are you?

Dave i understand your lack of brain capacity prevents you from thinking beyond sound bites and slogans. But this isnt a terrible difficult idea to grasp. The govt runs on projections for the upcoming year. They guess what the economy will do and what the revenues from taxes will be. When the economy tanks those revenues go down and the budget runs a deficit. See the local states situation for a great real world example.

Are you dumb enough to tell us if Clinton had a third term he would never have run a deficit even as the economy was crumbling around him in his last year in office?

To believe that you would have to be dumber than previously thought.

If things go from bad to worse will you give Obama the same pass you're giving Bush?
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
It is like the blind leading the blind. Those surpluses werent sustainable in any way shape or form.

Clinton could have run a third term and still run into a deficit. Because these guys budget like the good times will never end. When it comes down like all periods of growth do the govt is left with a deficit or in most cases a bigger deficit.

You'll never ever put the blame on your hero till the day you die eh?

Just skip right on the by the past 8 years like it never happened isn't going to cut it.

How old are you?

Dave i understand your lack of brain capacity prevents you from thinking beyond sound bites and slogans. But this isnt a terrible difficult idea to grasp. The govt runs on projections for the upcoming year. They guess what the economy will do and what the revenues from taxes will be. When the economy tanks those revenues go down and the budget runs a deficit. See the local states situation for a great real world example.

Are you dumb enough to tell us if Clinton had a third term he would never have run a deficit even as the economy was crumbling around him in his last year in office?

To believe that you would have to be dumber than previously thought.

If things go from bad to worse will you give Obama the same pass you're giving Bush?

He's not giving a pass to Bush. Basic common sense dictates that the economy was on the decline before Bush even took office. Now, I'm not pinning the blame on Clinton, either: the hard fall isn't his responsibility any more than the artificial climb is his responsibility. But seriously, politics aside, anyone who still thinks Clinton fostered prosperous times is an absolute fool. Those times never actually existed, so trying to pin a medal on somebody for them is absolutely baseless.

Party followers like to use artificial boundaries, such as hard and fast enter/exit dates, to promote their boy. If Obama takes office and we have another 9/11 a week later, it would be terribly ignorant to say "WTF Obama takes office and screws up national security a week later." That's stupid. Frankly, such an event would relieve Bush of his right to claim "no more 9/11's on my watch," because even though he's technically no longer on the clock at that point, it's not as black and white as "ABC is out of office, XYZ is in."
 

Rustler

Golden Member
Jan 14, 2004
1,253
1
81
Since this was the Attorney that proscuted Scooter Libby, why wann't the sting allowed to sell the Senate seat and bust the people who were wanting to buy the seat? Was the ivnestigation compromised so that it wouldn't go any higher and implicate........................whoever was involved higher up the food chain?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,676
2,430
126
Originally posted by: Rustler
Since this was the Attorney that proscuted Scooter Libby, why wann't the sting allowed to sell the Senate seat and bust the people who were wanting to buy the seat? Was the ivnestigation compromised so that it wouldn't go any higher and implicate........................whoever was involved higher up the food chain?

The Chicago Tribune broke the story of the wiretaps on the governor the day before Fitzgerald filed his complaint.

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: Rustler
Since this was the Attorney that proscuted Scooter Libby, why wann't the sting allowed to sell the Senate seat and bust the people who were wanting to buy the seat? Was the ivnestigation compromised so that it wouldn't go any higher and implicate........................whoever was involved higher up the food chain?

1. You don't know that the investigation was "compromised," what further evidence Fitzgerald has or where it will lead.

2. He may have thought it was important enough to stop Blagojevich before he could make a Senatorial appointment that would be tainted by the scandal.