Friday, October 06, 2006
That Fox-Henhouse Thing. Again.
Republicans investigating the Foley scandal have ties to Hastert.
Ethics Chairman Doc Hastings received $2,500 during the 2000 campaign from Hastert's political action committee, Keep Our Majority, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks money in politics. The six-term Washington Republican, who became ethics chairman last year, will lead the Foley investigation. Rep. Judy Biggert of Illinois, received $6,000 from Hastert's PAC and $2,000 from Hastert's own re-election fund during the 2002 campaign, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.But they've said their obligation to Hastert won't influence them. Should we believe them?
Comments:
<< Home
The Democrats on the committee have ties to their leadership too.
The Democrats on the bi-partisan committee took money from their leaders. It's the way Campaigns operate.
No smoking gun here.
The Democrats on the bi-partisan committee took money from their leaders. It's the way Campaigns operate.
No smoking gun here.
# posted by 
: 10/07/2006 05:34:00 AM
: 10/07/2006 05:34:00 AM
The above post illustrates why Republicans are so totally corrupt.
If your husband is accused of burglary, you do not get to sit on his jury.
It is true that other people have husbands. It's even conceivable, though unlikely, that one of those people might have a husband who is suspected of burglary.But if she votes to convict the burglar, she is not sending her husband to jail.
Consider: if the burglar's wife voted to send her husband to jail, he might decide to squeal on her. Maybe she fenced his take, for example.
And for exactly the same reasons, one does not place members of Congress who have received large sums of cash from the accused on the committee that will judge their guilt. Biggert was part of the corrupt Ethics Committee that refused to act as the Delay-Abramoff scandal exploded.
I hope this clarifies your moral confusion.
If your husband is accused of burglary, you do not get to sit on his jury.
It is true that other people have husbands. It's even conceivable, though unlikely, that one of those people might have a husband who is suspected of burglary.But if she votes to convict the burglar, she is not sending her husband to jail.
Consider: if the burglar's wife voted to send her husband to jail, he might decide to squeal on her. Maybe she fenced his take, for example.
And for exactly the same reasons, one does not place members of Congress who have received large sums of cash from the accused on the committee that will judge their guilt. Biggert was part of the corrupt Ethics Committee that refused to act as the Delay-Abramoff scandal exploded.
I hope this clarifies your moral confusion.
Maybe Anonymous is so confused by Rush Limbaugh that he thinks the ethics committee will be investigating whether Nancy Pelosi fabricated the IM transcripts and gave them to Brian Ross. Come to think of it, they probably will investigate the people who weren't involved in covering up Mark Foley's abuse of his position, if the Republicans on the investigation committee have obligations to the people who should be investigated.
Post a Comment
<< Home
More blogs about politics.
