Skip to comments.
Gonzales: Did He Help Bush Keep His DUI Quiet?
Newsweek via MSNBC ^
| January 23, 2005
| Michael Isikoff
Posted on 01/23/2005 6:54:50 AM PST by John W
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
To: LS
Agree! Also remember; "It's the seriousness of the charges that count." Right?
To: John W
Yeah, Newsweak buttheads. He kept it quite just for you guys to launch an October surprise.
To: John W
43
posted on
01/23/2005 7:23:50 AM PST
by
The Wizard
(DemonRATS: enemies of America)
To: SkyPilot
44
posted on
01/23/2005 7:25:10 AM PST
by
silent_jonny
(LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF ALL THOSE THAT THREATEN IT)
To: 1john2 3and4
What these guys don't get is that while perhaps 25% of the public are frothing, seething, disgruntled Dems, and 25% are hard-core Repubs/Conservatives, a huge middle is APOLITICAL and doesn't like this garbage---about any president.
We didn't get this during the Clinton years, and many a Freeper would say, "Well, this (new revelation) will sink Clinton for sure!" In fact, after a point when the public made up its mind that what Clinton had done was not "impeachable wrong," NEW charges infuriated them and were viewed as "piling on."
Bush is now benefitting from this same attitude. Most Americans don't like politics, and they don't really like elections, and they want to "get back to normal" once the election is over. So for Dems to keep regurgitating this stuff only helps us and hurts them.
45
posted on
01/23/2005 7:25:11 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrak of news (there is no c in Amtrak and no truth in MSM news))
To: John W
"Bush's summons to serve as a juror in the drunken-driving case was, in retrospect"
How did Bush, or anybody else, know what case he would be a potential juror on? What do they know that I don't. Each time I've received a jury summons I have no idea what, if any, case i'll be called up on.
46
posted on
01/23/2005 7:25:42 AM PST
by
crude77
To: John W
"In public, they were making a big show of how he was prepared to serve," said Crain. "In the back room, they were trying to get him off." These people are grasping at straws. They're still trying to make the events of thirty years ago pertinent. I doesn't make sense to have a sitting governor serve on a jury.
47
posted on
01/23/2005 7:27:24 AM PST
by
oldbrowser
(You lost the election...........get over it)
To: John W
We won. You lost. Get over it.
To: areafiftyone
Oh man NewsWEAK is getting pathetic! They really are scraping the bottom of the barrel! This whole story sounds like a bunch of
To: John W
How many of the Chappaquidick Law Enforcement personnel protected Senator Whale from Taxachusetts? How many of them are on the Kennedy payroll?
In fact, was he really the driver of the car or was it one of the nephews?
To: LS
There's something about your analysis....wait, oh yeah...."Sad but True".....yeah, that's the ticket.
To: John W
To: John W
The 'theme' of Isikoff's 'investigation' here is eerily reminiscent of the dirt-digging regarding President Bush's Texas ANG records. It's formulaic and all a 'journalist' need do is fill in the blanks: "Did ______ allow Dubya to avoid _____?"
53
posted on
01/23/2005 7:35:17 AM PST
by
arasina
(So there.)
To: SkyPilot
54
posted on
01/23/2005 7:35:59 AM PST
by
arasina
(So there.)
To: TomGuy
That would seem highly prejudicial for service on any jury. Even if he had showed up, he would have been dismissed. No DA or defense attorney would want a sitting governor on their jury.
True. This serves as an avenue to bash both the President and Gonzales.
However the argument being put forth isn't about the President per se but an attempt to derail the Gonzales nomination based upon differing info provided by Gonzales in his testimony to the Committee and info provided by the Judge, Prosecutor and defense Counsel in the Travis County court case. Gonzales's testimony follows the court transcript but the others claim there was an off the record meeting which Gonzales now says he doesn't recall.
55
posted on
01/23/2005 7:36:45 AM PST
by
deport
(It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.)
To: John W
Escaping jury duty? Now there's a crime for you. Thousands of people figure out ways to escape jury duty every week. Why doesn't Issikoff write about the Democrats' turning out fake ballots in a number of States?
To: crude77
How did Bush, or anybody else, know what case he would be a potential juror on?
He showed up and was pulled for this case....
57
posted on
01/23/2005 7:38:35 AM PST
by
deport
(It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.)
To: areafiftyone
Oh man NewsWEAK is getting pathetic! They really are scraping the bottom of the barrel!Which is why Spikey Isikoff works there.
58
posted on
01/23/2005 7:39:48 AM PST
by
mewzilla
(Has CBS retracted the story yet?)
To: snopercod
See my tagline.Exactly. I used to think they didn't know we were on to them. Now I think they just don't care and believe they can prevail.
59
posted on
01/23/2005 7:40:51 AM PST
by
Bahbah
To: snopercod
They are trying to show Gonzales was not truthful..It is a way to get at the President through Gonzales's testimony...They will start posturing about the Attorney General lying before the Senate...
60
posted on
01/23/2005 7:41:08 AM PST
by
MEG33
(GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson