OT: Really hard to believe

That is a typo where I spelled the first name. You had it right.
I think the signs were put there by Vincent's wife, Amelia, and/or her
relatives. They are rabid Democrats. My wife said they were saying how great it will be with Hillary as president the last time she was there.
I think Hillary has also been manuvering for effect too. And everything she does is also done to gain votes. In Hillary's case it means being seen as conservative. I am sure she is going to make a run for the presidency, and she is smart enough to know that she needs to be seen as in the center. The left will not bolt when she runs. So she can be more in the center than other Democrats and still raise the money to run. She will have to raise lots of money, because the act of her running will mean the Republicans will be shoveling money to their candidate.
It sounds as if Janine P. is smart too. Being anti-guns probably plays well in your area. Dan
jim rozen wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@krl.org says...

Not with me. She's not anti-gun. She pro-Pirro.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Delay is accused of soliciting money from corporations and using it to finance political campaigns in Texas. Basically, what Delay did was collect donations from corporations all over the country to be used to get Republican candidates elected. This is not legal in the state of Texas. So, the way Delay sought to get around the law was by sending the money to the Republican campaign committee in Washington and they in turn sent the money back to Texas for Republican candidates to use. The amount of money sent to Washington was $190,000 and just by coincidence I guess the amount sent back to Texas also just happened to be $190,000. Some people call this money laundering. This is what Delay is accused of. If he did this then he is guilty of a crime. As everyone knows ethics is not something Delay is reputed to have in large supply, so for him to also break laws to get what he wants is not exactly jumping to a conclusion.
Hawke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hawke wrote:

at the time, as I understand the rules in Texas, it was legal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It has been the law in Texas for almost 100 years
--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Asked for peoples money to be sent from National pool. This is a very common act and is done every day by both or all 4 parties or more I suppose depending on the year.
The law is currently different. The law back then was a little looser. Remember the closing of various loopholes from time to time ?
This person charging Delay did so in a political event - so it is easily seen it is Political. This person has also charged other members of Texas of the other party with other fouls. But just when it is about to go to court - he declines to present a case and the case is closed. But the press has a heyday. This is a form of a terroristic act. This is not politics. This Foul person should be once and for all be charged and loose his legal papers.
Martin Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
Hawke wrote:

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

His stunt with Kay Baily Hutchenson is a prime example of his terroristic tactics. A true Partisan Hack and loose cannon.
Gunner

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Which reminds me...anyone recall all the Lefties going gaga over the allegation that Rove outed that Plame woman..the alleged CIA operative?
Chuckle...seems as though their partisanship was once again..a strikeout.
Snicker
New York Times reporter Judith Miller has finally been released from jail, after agreeing to testify to what everyone already knew, i.e., that she discussed Valerie Plame with Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff. I wrote about this last night; like many others, I expressed puzzlement over why Miller has finally agreed to name Libby, when he gave her and other journalists permission to do so a year ago.
Several readers have written to point out that I had missed a key fact that was not disclosed in the article I linked to last night, but was in today's article in the Washington Post:
After she received this "personal, voluntary waiver," Miller said, her lawyer approached the special prosecutor in the leak investigation and received an assurance that her testimony would be narrowly limited to her communications with the source. She did not mention the source's name in her brief appearance on the courthouse steps, but he has been identified previously as I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby... Bingo. No one is crazy enough to sit in jail over a silly misunderstanding--she wanted a "personal" waiver, and Libby was happy to give it to her, in fact thought he had given it to her last year, but somehow they failed to communicate. No, Judith Miller sat in jail until the prosecutor agreed that she would not have to testify about any source of the information about Valerie Plame other than Libby. Miller had multiple sources, and everyone already knew that she talked to Libby. The real question is, who was her other source? Some have speculated that it may have been Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, or maybe another journalist. Now, we may never know.
It's hard not to find the prosecutor's action here disturbing. Who is the second source that Miller went to jail to protect? Why is the prosecutor willing to forgo information about the second source? If Plame's own husband was telling journalists that his wife was a CIA employee, isn't that highly relevant to whether someone in the administration should be criminally prosecuted for saying the same thing? Or, if Plame's employment was so widely known that journalists were telling one another that she worked for the Agency, isn't that likewise relevant to any prospective criminal prosecution?
Is Scooter Libby being set up? Let's hope not.
PAUL adds: One thing seems clear in all of this -- Miller's lawyer Robert Bennett is way out of line as he makes the rounds of the talk shows suggesting that Scooter Libby should have called Judith Miller earlier to personally assure her that she had his permission to testify. For example, he told Wolf Blitzer:
Mr. Libby knew where Judy was. He had her phone number. They knew each other. There was no secret where she was. So I find it amazing that somebody would suggest that Judy would unnecessarily spend 85 days in jail. I find it amazing that Bennett would say something this ridiculous. As CNN has reported, Libby's lawyer (Joseph Tate) told Miller's original lawyer (Floyd Abrams) a year ago that she could testify as to Libby's conversation with Miller. And Libby himself testified twice before the grand jury about his conversation with Miller. The claim that Miller thought Libby's waiver of confidentiality might have been coerced is absurd. As Bennett knows, these waivers are executed in writing with a lawyer present, and state that they are given freely and voluntarily. In the real world, a lawyer-to-lawyer conversation between Tate and Abrams in which the former represented that his client had executed a waiver would have left no doubt that an uncoerced waiver had been granted. But if there was any doubt, Miller had a year to resolve it before going to jail.
In any case, Libby had no reason to contact Miller's attorney again. As Tate told CNN, Libby assumed that Miller was protecting another source, as she very likely was. (Another, more speculative, possibility is that Miller was trying to play the martyr, perhaps to restore her "street credibility" after coming under attack from liberals for her reporting on WMD in Iraq). Thus, absent any word from Miller's lawyer, Libby had no reason to think that Miller was in jail because she was protecting him, nor is there any reason to think that now. But as soon as Libby got word that Miller was claiming she needed personal assurances, Libby provided them. This makes it all the more unconscionable for Bennett to suggest that Libby is to blame for Miller stay in jail. And it's absurd to believe that, if all Miller wanted was another, more personalized assurance from Libby, she would not have had her lawyer obtain it sooner.
In this regard, it's also odd that Miller remained in jail for more than ten days after Libby provided his most recent assurances. This is further evidence that the real problem for Miller was not the absence of Libby's voice repeating what his lawyer had long ago said. As John suggests, it's most likely that the real event that had to occur in order to spring Miller was the prosecutor's decision not to target the source Miller actually was protecting.
UPDATE: A New York lawyer has another theory, which is plausible. It's also light years beyond anything you'll read on this topic in the newspapers tomorrow:
Re: your post this evening regarding Judith Miller. Her change of heart may have been prompted by the prosecutor's agreement to refrain from questioning her not about other sources in the Plame matter, but about another matter in which the same prosecutor filed a motion to compel Miller's testimony before the grand jury. I wrote you about this several months ago. In a published decision, U.S.D.J. Robert Sweet (S.D.N.Y.) denied Fitzpatrick's motion to compel Miller to testify before a grand jury relating to a leak to Miller about a warrant issued to the FBI for a search of a New York Muslim charity's offices. A source leaked this information to Miller, who, incredibly, promptly contacted the Muslim charity and revealed the warrant prior to the search. Fortunately, no FBI agents were injured when they searched the offices the next day, in what clearly could have developed into a very dangerous situation.
District Judge Sweet (I will resist reiterating my comments regarding him included in my other email to you) denied the prosecutor's motion to compel Miller's testimony about this incident, finding, if you can believe it, that Miller's conduct was permissible because it was merely in keeping with the Times' editorial policy of contacting subjects of upcoming articles for comment prior to publication. In opposing the motion Miller stated that she was contacting the charity to get its comments about an article she planned to write after the search had been conducted. In doing so, of course, she divulged the existence of the warrant and created a situation where the office could have been booby-trapped, or at a minimum crucial evidence destroyed or removed. As an attorney, I found the facts of this case and Judge Sweet's reasoning so disturbing that I continue to be shocked, months later, that this incident hasn't received more public comment. I don't expect the Times to report it, of course, but where is the alternative media? I noted that the prosecutor himself (as opposed to a deputy) filed a long affidavit in support of the application, which I understand is something of a rare occurrence in criminal practice. If you haven't read the decision you really should. I found it to be an eye-opener.
In any case, I always thought that Miller agreed to go to jail not to protect a dubious principle and a source who had already clearly released her from confidentiality in the Plame matter, but rather out of self-preservation, so that she could safely ride out the duration of the grand jury in jail without having to testify about the search warrant affair and her frankly criminal role in that. If my sense about this is correct, she caved once it was suggested that the grand jury could be extended for up to 18 more months. The absurdly public "release" from confidentiality recently restated by Scooter Libby gives her cover, but my hunch is that the real reason for her release from jail is the prosecutor's agreement to limit his questioning of her to the Libby contacts, which puts the search warrant matter off limits.
If you are interested in reading Judge Sweet's opinion let me know and I'll try to locate a copy or a link. The decision was published in the New York Law Journal.
Love the site. It is consistently the most informative, reasoned and interesting blog I have seen.
If that's right, maybe it's good news for Libby: he's not being set up by the prosecutor, he's just the PR fall guy for Miller and her lawyer, who don't want to mention a discreditable incident about which the public knows nothing. I hope that's the right explanation. It still leaves open, of course, the question of why Fitzgerald seemed to think it was a big deal to get Miller's testimony, if he wasn't interested in the second source.
The case referred to by our reader can be accessed here.
PAUL adds: While we're on the subject of unconscionable statements, consider this one by New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.: "We are very pleased that [Miller] has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify." (emphasis added) Miller had a direct and uncoerced written waiver a year ago and she got the "phone" version immediately after she asked for it. It would have been hard for Paul Krugman to produce a more misleading statement than Sulzberger's.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

The editors of National Review weigh in on Ronnie Earle's indictment of Tom DeLay:
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200509291317.asp
Following the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, conservatives are left wondering what to make of the charges. The answer is simple. The charges are absurd and should be thrown out of court. Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has charged DeLay with conspiracy to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. The alleged violation involved a money swap between the now-defunct Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), which DeLay helped found but never managed, and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). TRMPAC sent a check for $190,000 to RNSEC, and RNSEC then sent checks totaling approximately the same amount to Texas House candidates in October of 2002. Earle, a Democrat, calls this money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from corporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.
Earle is wrong. Before campaign-finance reform, this kind of soft-money for hard-money swap was perfectly legal and happened all the time. In October of 2002, the Texas Democratic party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC.
Also, as former Department of Justice official Barbara Comstock noted yesterday, Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly? Earle considers these transactions illegal because he thinks they should be, and hes convinced a grand jury to play along with him.
In addition, DeLay denies that he had anything to do with the (legal) transaction at issue. It strains credulity to think, as Earle apparently alleges, that the House Majority Leader was involved in the day-to-day mailing of checks by this PAC.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, Delay denies that he had anything to do with the (illegal) transaction. Boy, that's really shocking that a criminal would deny being guilty of the crime he's charged with. That almost never happens, I'll bet. 8-)
Hawke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Of course!
" I did not..have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky...."
Chortle
Gunner
Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

conservatives are left wondering what to make of the charges. The answer is simple. The charges are absurd and should be thrown out of court.
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has charged DeLay with conspiracy to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. The alleged violation involved a money swap between the now-defunct Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), which DeLay helped found but never managed, and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). TRMPAC sent a check for $190,000 to RNSEC, and RNSEC then sent checks totaling approximately the same amount to Texas House candidates in October of 2002. Earle, a Democrat, calls this money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from corporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.
Earle is wrong. Before campaign-finance reform, this kind of soft-money for hard-money swap was perfectly legal and happened all the time. In October of 2002, the Texas Democratic party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC.
Also, as former Department of Justice official Barbara Comstock noted yesterday, Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly? Earle considers these transactions illegal because he thinks they should be, and hes convinced a grand jury to play along with him.
Even if the underlying transactions were illegal, Earle would have to convince a jury that DeLay conspired with others to send the checks. DeLay told Brit Hume on Fox News Wednesday night that he was not aware of the transactions until after they had already taken place. If Earle has any evidence proving otherwise, he left it out of the indictment.
It should come as no surprise that the mastermind of such a farcical case also conducted a farcical investigation, which dragged on for 34 months and six grand juries. Accused of frequently leaking sealed proceedings, Earle also discussed the case as the featured speaker at a Democratic-party fundraiser last May. He told the crowd, This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before. This is a structural problem involving the combination of money and power. Money brings power and power corrupts.
Earle should know. He has already abused his power in this case to extort money from corporations for his own pet projects in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them, as Byron York has reported.
These charges probably wont survive first contact with DeLays attorney, who also defended Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in Earles crash-and-burn case against her in 1993. Hutchison, up for reelection, insisted on a jury trial. As soon as a jury was chosen, Earle refused to proceed. That judge threw out the case. The same thing should happen this time, if the case even makes it to trial.
One needn't be a DeLay flack to see this. We have had criticisms of DeLay ourselves his support of the Medicare-drug benefit, his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and his recent comments about the pared down budget all come to mind. But this indictment is outrageous and should not be allowed to succeed as a tactic. While the political fallout of this indictment will take time to sort through, this case makes one thing clear: Campaign-finance regulation makes prosecution a continuation of politics by other means.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

Coming Soon: The Ronnie Earle Movie The DeLay prosecutor has let a film crew follow him through the whole case.
For the last two years, as he pursued the investigation that led to Wednesday's indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle has given a film crew "extraordinary access" to make a motion picture about his work on the case.
The resulting film is called The Big Buy, made by Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. "Raymond Chandler meets Willie Nelson on the corner of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in The Big Buy, a Texas noir political detective story that chronicles what some are calling a 'bloodless coup with corporate cash,'" reads a description of the picture on Birnbaum's website, markbirnbaum.com. The film, according to the description, "follows maverick Austin DA Ronnie Earle's investigation into what really happened when corporate money joined forces with relentless political ambitions to help swing the pivotal 2002 Texas elections, cementing Republican control from Austin to Washington DC."
"We approached him [Earle], and he offered us extraordinary access to him and, to an extent, to his staff," Birnbaum told National Review Online Thursday. "We've been shooting for about two years."
Birnbaum and Schermbeck showed a work-in-progress version of The Big Buy last month at the Dallas Video Festival. At the moment, they do not have a deal for the film to be shown anywhere else. Their last film, Larry v. Lockney, was shown on PBS, and they hope that perhaps a similar arrangement might be made for the new picture. Whoever ends up showing it, the film has so far been funded entirely by its makers. "We tried really hard to get it funded," Birnbaum says, "but we didn't get any takers."
Schermbeck told National Review Online that the film was an irresistible Texas story. "I've been pretty interested in watching Tom DeLay work," Schermbeck says. "I thought he was a fascinating guy, certainly the most powerful Texan to emerge on the national scene in some time, a kind of Republican Sam Rayburn type, with that kind of mastery of the machinery and the will to do it."
But DeLay did not cooperate with the filmmakers, and neither did a number of DeLay allies. Earle, on the other hand, did. "I had known about Ronnie Earle for a very long time," Schermbeck says. "I thought that would be an angle to approach the whole story, telling something about Tom DeLay, even though Tom DeLay wouldn't grant us an interview."
Earle "allowed us behind the scenes when the indictments came down last year, the first wave of indictments," Schermbeck says. "We got to follow him back to his home a couple of times, which I understand he doesn't allow anybody to do." Schermbeck says the film includes interviews with some critics of Earle, as well as lawyers who are representing some of the targets of the investigation.
So far, The Big Buy has received almost no attention in the press. With DeLay's indictment, and increased attention to Earle as well, that situation seems likely to change. (The filmmakers say they will be back at work next week, filming a new ending to the picture.) "We're pretty low on everybody's radar," Schermbeck says. "We kind of took a gamble three years ago. We didn't know what was going to happen. We feel like, as documentary filmmakers, we gambled and it paid off."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

http://www.ronnieearle.com /
Snicker....
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:08:25 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner

Money laundering.
Say I heard about a briefing today.
--snip-- Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing.
He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."
"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"
His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.
Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?" --snip--
--
"Simplicity of life, even the barest, is not misery but
the very foundation of refinement." --William Morris
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:18:42 -0700, Larry Jaques

Care to post the relevant cut and post from the indictment?
<EG>
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gunner again uses his strategy of playing dumb, in this instance pretending he can't understand any reason why Delay would have been indicted even though it's common knowledge he's been accused of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. Playing dumb is a common strategy employed by Gunner, which is understandable because he doesn't actually have to pretend.
Hawke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Tell you what, Parakeet. If Delay gets convicted, Ill make a $10 donation to the organization of your choice. Any one. In my name.
If he isnt, you make a $10 donation to the organization of my choice. In your name. <EG>
Is it a deal?
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gummy, I'll take that bet on one condition: The looser must post images of the canceled check (front and back) clearly showing the endorsement in the drop box.as proof he didn't welch.
BTW, we are coming up on 2,000 KIAs in Iraq. Did that check you were supposed to send to the Red Crescent Society ever clear?
--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Who are you addressing this to?
The only "looser" I see, would be you.
Care to readdress the question?
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.