[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Cheney’s incident happened on private property so it should remain private affair.[/quote]
I don’t agree with this. Yes, it happened on private property but it’s skirting the line of a criminal act.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Just wondering if anyone had seen the reports that Cheney denied speaking with the local police until 14 hours later and that the Secret Service pretty much made it impossible to meet with him till that time?
I ask because of the speculation that he was drunk at the time, therefore needing the “sober up” time to meet with authorities.
Either way drunk conspiracy or not, it seems like a pretty above the law attitude. I don’t think if I shot a buddy in a hunting trip that the cops would let me get back to them when I felt like it the next day.[/quote]
The sheriff says he was on the scene within 20 minutes, talked to everyone involved and there was no evidence of alcohol. Where are you reading these conspiracies?
http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_4468704,00.html
Callers to DA: Will you prosecute?
Waiting for sheriff’s report is the next step
By Sarah Viren Caller-Times
February 15, 2006
Carlos Valdez stood in his office Tuesday afternoon, tiredly dropping one pink phone message slip after another onto his desk:
“ABC News, The Baltimore Sun, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press”
The district attorney had known these were coming since Sunday, when he learned that Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot 78-year-old Harry Whittington, a prominent Austin lawyer, during a quail hunt.
"When I heard it was on the Armstrong Ranch, which is in Kenedy County, I said, ‘Oh no, the vice president shot someone in my jurisdiction: This can’t be good.’ "
In addition to Nueces County, Valdez’s jurisdiction in the 105th Judicial District includes Kenedy and Kleberg counties.
Now, he said, everyone on each of those pink messages slips wants to know the same thing: Will the district attorney’s office prosecute? And the calls aren’t just coming from the news media.
Four people phoned and others e-mailed to ask - or demand - that Valdez go after the vice president, or face consequences. One man called claiming to be a local taxpayer, but he could be heard on the voicemail mispronouncing “Nueces.” The man pronounced the county’s name “NEW-sis.”
“A lot of people are going to be writing checks to your opponents in the next political race unless you immediately announce that you will be taking this issue,” said another caller, from New York, who left a message on Assistant District Attorney Mark Skurka’s phone Tuesday.
Gary Head, from Michigan, said he e-mailed Nueces County Sunday to demand “equal justice” for Cheney, who was issued a warning from Texas Parks and Wildlife for hunting without a mandatory $7 bird stamp.
“I write people all day long - people in the House and Senate,” Head said Tuesday. “There has never been any reason to write people in Corpus Christi or anyone in Texas before.”
Right now, Valdez says, he has nothing to tell the callers. The Kenedy County Sheriff’s Department is investigating and has not released an incident report, saying it isn’t ready and that it will be released when it’s completed. Texas Parks and Wildlife labeled the shooting an accident.
“At this point there is no reason to look into it,” Valdez said. “Everything points to this as an accident. There is nothing, nothing, nothing to indicate there is any criminal wrongdoing by anybody.”
Whittington was listed in stable condition, but Valdez said the national media and other callers have been asking him what-ifs.
“If he died, I would take that one additional step of looking at whatever report the sheriff prepared. And based on what that says, we might do a couple of things: We might ask them to conduct extra investigations by asking for specific statements of specific persons or we might decide that a grand jury might want to look at this. Maybe one or the other, or maybe nothing at all. Maybe we will be satisfied with the report and say everything’s done.”
In the meantime, he’s not expecting the calls to subside soon. But this media frenzy, he said, is nothing compared to what started on March 31, 1995, when Tejano singer Selena Quintanilla-Perez was shot to death.
“Those calls came from all over the world,” he said.
Staff writer Neal Falgoust contributed to this report. Contact Sarah Viren at 886-4316
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Just wondering if anyone had seen the reports that Cheney denied speaking with the local police until 14 hours later and that the Secret Service pretty much made it impossible to meet with him till that time?
I ask because of the speculation that he was drunk at the time, therefore needing the “sober up” time to meet with authorities.
Either way drunk conspiracy or not, it seems like a pretty above the law attitude. I don’t think if I shot a buddy in a hunting trip that the cops would let me get back to them when I felt like it the next day.
Now that sounds bad.
I heard Ted Kennedy was drunk when he drove off that bridge and killed that woman.
Face it, politicians are assholes. They can get away with things we cannot.
Cheney fucked up. He will get away with it unless he lies under oath.[/quote]
Its never the crime that gets them in trouble, its the cover up that follows.
If there is a cover up (and I don’t really know how there could be) then he will catch shit. Otherwise, there won’t be any charges for Dick.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
First off Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not getting his dick sucked. Way to not understand the issues![/quote]
Wrong.
The issue I raised was the MSM’s response to the Lewinsky scandal when that scandal first broke is the same as the MSM’s response to Cheney’s 2 beer human target practice.
FYI - Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury about his inneraction with Paula Jones…not lying about Lewinsky.
You are the jack@$$ that does not understand the issues.
F-ing right wingnuttery…
Also, let’s bear in mind that Clinton WAS NOT ACTUALLY IMPEACHED.
…it was an ATTEMPTED impeachment, but not a successful one.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey marm,
That is absolutely true. john “pay my parking tickets, bitch” kerry did receive the second most votes in history.
That also means that more people pulled the lever for kerry than Reagan, and bill “I’m going to take that furniture, suckas” clinton.
However, an entire state-full of voters 3,500,000 more people pulled it for George W. Bush.
With that many votes, it must be hard to categorically dismiss the voters as “dumb” (however, you guys do try).
JeffR[/quote]
Take it easy bitter wingnut.
It seems to me that you talk out of both sides of your mouth when it comes to labeling Americans as “dumb” (a word that I have never used. Look up the definition…it is not physically possible in this instance.)
In your mind Americans are “dumb” with regards to nutrition but brilliant with regards to politics. So they have time to stay up on politics but no time to stay up on fitness and nutrition.
mmmmkay…
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
First off Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not getting his dick sucked. Way to not understand the issues!
Wrong.
The issue I raised was the MSM’s response to the Lewinsky scandal when that scandal first broke is the same as the MSM’s response to Cheney’s 2 beer human target practice.
FYI - Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury about his inneraction with Paula Jones…not lying about Lewinsky.
You are the jack@$$ that does not understand the issues.
F-ing right wingnuttery…
[/quote]
You are a fucking lunatic. You said I was wrong and then repeated what I said.
Pull your head out of your ass.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Also, let’s bear in mind that Clinton WAS NOT ACTUALLY IMPEACHED.
…it was an ATTEMPTED impeachment, but not a successful one.[/quote]
Wrong.
Clinton was impeached but not forced to leave office. He was only censured for the infractions that led to his impeachment.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Also, let’s bear in mind that Clinton WAS NOT ACTUALLY IMPEACHED.
…it was an ATTEMPTED impeachment, but not a successful one.[/quote]
He was impeached. The impeachment is simply like a trial. Being impeached does not mean being convicted or being guilty of the crime.
OJ was tried for murder. He was found not guilty. Same type of thing.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You are a fucking lunatic. You said I was wrong and then repeated what I said.
Pull your head out of your ass.[/quote]
Real nice.
The fact is the MSM’s early frenzied response not the complete waste of $70M+ on a useless Starr investigation.
I expect Clinton to be swinging from a tree after that outlay on cash but Starr proved his complete and utter incompetence.
Like I wrote before…the right wingnuttery is getting a taste of their own medicine on this one.
The pu$$y @$$ right wingnut reply is…but, but, Kennedy…
F Kennedy and his whole corrupt family and their illegally obtained wealth from bootlegging during prohibition!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
brianhunter wrote:
I agree with you thunderbolt23, it’s easy to tell who the non huntin’ libs are ! The liberal press reports things like this so ignorantly, even the conservative press is bad. Any quail hunter from Texas has probably been peppered before - never made National news. Funny how how an idiot like John Kerry has a picture taken with a shotgun barrel pointing directly at near folks with his finger on the trigger (which easily proves he doesn’t know guns at all), and no one says a thing ? I wish politics would stay on politics and out of hunting and abortions ! BHW
LOL at “the liberal press”, as if any news media source would pass up a story like this. Some of you live in alternate realities to this one.[/quote]
I can agree with you on this.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The issue I raised was the MSM’s response to the Lewinsky scandal when that scandal first broke is the same as the MSM’s response to Cheney’s 2 beer human target practice.
You are the jack@$$ that does not understand the issues.
F-ing right wingnuttery…
[/quote]
Woah, wait a minute. Where did the “2 beer” thing come from?
And not to defend Zap or anything, as I’m sure he’s a big boy, but can we try to keep THIS thread from degenerating any further into name calling?
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Also, let’s bear in mind that Clinton WAS NOT ACTUALLY IMPEACHED.
…it was an ATTEMPTED impeachment, but not a successful one.[/quote]
DON’T USE BIG CAPITAL LETTERS WHEN YOU ARE WRONG!!!
You have to admit, asking the White House press secretary if Cheney should resign over this was retarded.
[quote]doogie wrote:
You have to admit, asking the White House press secretary if Cheney should resign over this was retarded.
[/quote]
Absolutely. The White House press corps can be pretty full of themselves and retarded IMO.
Apparently MSNBC made it up.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey marm,
That is absolutely true. john “pay my parking tickets, bitch” kerry did receive the second most votes in history.
That also means that more people pulled the lever for kerry than Reagan, and bill “I’m going to take that furniture, suckas” clinton.
However, an entire state-full of voters 3,500,000 more people pulled it for George W. Bush.
With that many votes, it must be hard to categorically dismiss the voters as “dumb” (however, you guys do try).
JeffR[/quote]
To further clarify how meaningless absolute numbers are outside of context, I’ll point out that Nader recieved more than ten times as many votes in '04 as George Washington- or all electors total in that election- did in 1789. Americans trust Nader more than they did George Washington?
BTW, here’s a link to the Brit Hume interview with Cheney:
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You are a fucking lunatic. You said I was wrong and then repeated what I said.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Real nice.
The fact is the MSM’s early frenzied response not the complete waste of $70M+ on a useless Starr investigation.
I expect Clinton to be swinging from a tree after that outlay on cash but Starr proved his complete and utter incompetence.
Like I wrote before…the right wingnuttery is getting a taste of their own medicine on this one.
The pu$$y @$$ right wingnut reply is…but, but, Kennedy…
F Kennedy and his whole corrupt family and their illegally obtained wealth from bootlegging during prohibition!
[/quote]
I agree the Clintom impeachment was a waste of time and money. It was an embarrassment for the whole thing.
I agree with your Kennedy sentiments too.
I agree with you that both parties suck.
I just wish you would read posts before you start blasting away.