This whole story sounds like a bunch of 
Posted on 01/23/2005 6:54:50 AM PST by John W
Jan. 31 issue - Senate Democrats put off a vote on White House counsel Alberto Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general, complaining he had provided evasive answers to questions about torture and the mistreatment of prisoners. But Gonzales's most surprising answer may have come on a different subject: his role in helping President Bush escape jury duty in a drunken-driving case involving a dancer at an Austin strip club in 1996. The judge and other lawyers in the case last week disputed a written account of the matter provided by Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It's a complete misrepresentation," said David Wahlberg, lawyer for the dancer, about Gonzales's account.
Bush's summons to serve as a juror in the drunken-driving case was, in retrospect, a fateful moment in his political career: by getting excused from jury duty he was able to avoid questions that would have required him to disclose his own 1976 arrest and conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in Kennebunkport, Maine.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
screw them all.....
LOL!
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.
"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.
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.
We won. You lost. Get over it.
This whole story sounds like a bunch of
There's something about your analysis....wait, oh yeah...."Sad but True".....yeah, that's the ticket.
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 _____?"
LOL! Great satire.
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.
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?
How did Bush, or anybody else, know what case he would be a potential juror on?
Which is why Spikey Isikoff works there.
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.
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...
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.