Posted on 07/29/2002 7:23:19 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
People at the top have agenda's, Kennedy and the big money clans that are going to get rich from the China entry into the WTO. Nobody will stop them. And at the same time US will be destroyed
Can anyone remember the person that JT said was being put forward by EK, to replace JT. Lets observe.
We need to start a fund for JT. He may seem a little scatty, but what you see is what you get, can we really say that about anyopne else in government, past or present. ?
To: exodus
Court cases are overturned all the time because of minor technicalities. In this case, there were flagrant abuses of justice in order to obtain conviction. This is a case screaming out to be OVERTURNED. I just hope that Traficant uses a good attorney (i.e. not himself) in the appeals process.
p.s. And why not ONE IOTA of physical evidence in this case? It seems to have consisted entirely of dubious testimony by witnesses who were trying to get their own sentences lightened.
# 23 by PJ-Comix
There is no way that Traficant would be able to afford a lawyer as good as Traficant is himself. I watched the House hearings, and Traficant did a good job. Richard Detore spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers. There is no evidence that Detore did wrong, and lots of evidence that Detore actually tried to fight corruption. Detore is still persecuted, and will probably be imprisoned to “prove” that his charges of government corruption are false. Professional lawyers didn’t help Detore.
In the court case, the corrupt judge wouldn’t allow the majority of Traficant’s evidence, but did allow the government’s hearsay. The judge and prosecutor conspired to bring in a guilty verdict. The judge even told Traficant that he could bring up evidence not allowed in her court during his appeal, a plain message that Traficant would be guilty no matter what he did in her court.
In the House Ethics Committee, I watched as the Chairman and members ridiculed Traficant’s testimony.
I watched as Traficant was badgered by Chairman Hefley while presenting audio tapes that the Committee had asked for.
Traficant was asked to describe the relevancy of each tape, and did so. The Chairman then said, “explain the relevancy of the tapes.” Traficant did so, again. And the Chairman asked, “please explain the relevancy of these tapes.” Traficant went over it again. Remember, Traficant had a limited amount of time to present his case. Without opposition, and thus with the approval of the members of the Committee, the Chairman forced Traficant to spend about 15 minutes explaining why he was presenting tapes that the Committee had asked him to present.
When Traficant pointed out that he had been unable to find a certain tape, the council for the Committee said, “We have that tape.” Traficant said, “You do? I couldn’t find it, so you didn’t get it from me. Where did you get it? ”
Traficant was told, “We got nine tapes from the Justice Department, and that tape was among them.” Traficant said, “If you already had the tapes, why did you tell me to give you the tapes? ”
There was no answer from the Committee.
Traficant then asked, “Did you ask the Justice Department for those tapes, or did the Justice Department take it upon themselves to send the tapes to you?
Chairman Hefley said, “What difference does it make how we got the tapes?”
Traficant said, “It is relevant because the Justice Department is not supposed to be a party to this Congressional hearing. If they sent information without your request, that would be evidence that the Justice Department is out to get Jim Traficant.”
Traficant demanded, “I want to see all documents passed between this Committee and the Justice Department.”
Chairman Hefley said, “The documents passed between this Committee and the Justice Department are none of your business.
The body wire issue was raised at trial, and the FBI has internal documentation that they feared wiring someone would jeopardize the investigation, due to Traficant being somewhat "touchy feely".
This is the same man who laughably claimed he accepted nearly $200k in mob money in a one-man sting operation. When was the last time an Ohio sheriff (JT's job at the time) played Eliot Ness? Needless to say, his constituents (many would say co-conspirators) acquitted him. But...
Caught in that whopper without the cash, Traficant was found guilty of tax evasion.
Listen, I admired a lot of the things the guy said over the years, and particularly enjoyed his bombast when it was aimed at liberals. HOWEVER, the guy is a crook. There is no conspiracy to bring him down, one isn't needed.
If it was not so serious, this sounds like a movie. The media needs to get its a$$ off the fence and really investigate this one. I think if they look really hard, we are going to get something on the scale of Watergate.
Maybe not the President, but senior, long serving congressman will bite the dust, JT just has to stay alive.
JT for President.
I'm surprised that NOT ONE reporter even investigated Traficant's allegation that Judge Wells' hubby had business dealings with the prosecution team.
If the government can have it’s innocence accepted despite the evidence against it, allow Jim Traficant to have his innocence accepted because there was no evidence against him.Oh please, who do you think you are kidding? Traficant was and is corrupt, and there's plenty of evidence (including testimony from non-felons) to back it up. It's a miracle he escaped jail for as long as he did.
- exodus
You didn’t watch the House Ethics Committee in action if you still believe that Traficant is guilty. I listened to Traficant’s evidence.
Traficant is innocent.
I brought up Waco, yes. Our government committed premeditated murder there, murder planned and orchestrated at the highest levels of our government.
I could bring up Ruby Ridge, too. That was also a case of premeditated murder.
You believe that your government is capable of murder, Mr. Bird.
Why do you consider your government too good to frame a man that fought against governmental abuses?
The average congressman or woman, even the Democrats, looks like Mother Teresa when compared to Trafficant. The guy is a criminal and nothing in the article undermines that.
Why do you fawn over Mr Roadkill? Because he got a Nazi released from Israeli jail, because he bad mouthes the IRS and "the government." Sure he's made some good votes over the years but got paid real well off the books for his efforts. Maybe that kind of behavior is okay in Ohio or wherever you live, but not in most parts of this country.
If he really was innocent, a real lawyer like like Joe Di Genova could have gotten him off easily. He would have made mince meat of the prosecutions case. So you either have Trafficant as fool for being his own attorney or he's really guilty and he just assumes that you and enough other "aginers" are foolish enough to believe him. So who is the fool, you are your hero?
Wrong. It was a congressman's lover who ran the bordello, supposedly unbeknowst to the congressman.
The gentleman from Ohio has referenced the lack of evidence and the quality of evidence. Is there anybody in this Chamber who believes that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant ) could be captured incriminating himself on tape? Should we, in this case or any other case, reward a wrongdoer because he has the wherewithal to avoid being captured in the act? Shall a clever criminal who has enriched himself at taxpayer expense be further enriched because he almost avoided detection?
I paraphrased comments made by a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct back in 1980 in that matter. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant ) has violated the House rules not only as an individual who happened to be a public servant, but as a public servant who traded upon that very elected office.
There is no one who disputes that the gentleman has fought aggressively for his constituents in the 17th Congressional District of Ohio. I daresay that 435 Members who come here every week do the same for constituents back home across this land, and yet we come here in the public good, not to enrich ourselves for private profit.
To my colleagues who were sworn in in this Chamber on January 7, 1997, in the 105th Congress, what an interesting tenure we have had. Our first vote for Speaker of the House, who had an ethics cloud hanging over his head; our last vote as freshmen members on the impeachment matter of a sitting president; and here we are again tonight with the lens of history trained upon us.
There are some who have been fretting about this vote and that we are debating it in prime time, of all things. Well, my colleagues, I believe that tonight is going to be one of this institution's finest hours.
To the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), I absolutely agree with his statements on the previous motion. It should take extraordinary wrongdoing to override the wishes of a voter in a Congressional district. I believe that. And I believe this is one such case.
Sometimes when we walk in darkness, we are overcome with the brilliant light of truth. A little over 300 days ago, we assembled as a body on the darkest day of our Nation's history, and we sent a glimmer of light to the people we represent that you can extinguish thousands of American lives, but you will not extinguish the American spirit. And yet when you destroy that fragile bond of trust between the elected and the electorate, expulsion is the only appropriate remedy, regrettably, and I ask for that vote.
Yes, anyone with half a brain knows the government didnt order any such thing. The Branch Davidians lit the fire so they go out in their blaze of glory, kind of like Islamic terrorists would in a similar situation.
Perhaps a thousand of them already have and found out that Trafficant was lying.
Just think the President, has hard times getting motions passed, without any questions or delays, but this was almost nano seconds in comparison. So Who is the big fish or fisheds behind this one.
To all mass Media "Investigate immediately". When the people do not need to know, you investiage private lives and spread the news around the world, but when it comes to serious issues of corruption in government or big business, you all duck for cover.
I believe that my government is capable of framing a man that fought against governmental abuses. With Mr. Traficant, no framing was necessary.
Demjanjuk wasn't a Nazi. He was caught up in the rolling tide of the war. Many Ukranians were forced to work for the Germans as slave loborers, although there were some who enthusiatically cooperated with them out of sympathy for Nazism. I don't think Demjanjuk was one of the latter. Most likely he worked for the Germans as many folks did out of having to earn a living during those times. In any case, he was a relatively low level worker. I have read that he served as a camp guard but that could also have meant that he was just a worker whose occasional duties included that. In any event, he definitely was NOT Ivan the Terrible as was alleged. The Israeli Supreme court, to their credit, recognized the weight of the evidence and released Demjanjuk.
This dopey statement will HAUNT Hulshof until the end of his political career (hopefully soon). So he believes that the of lack of evidence means that the accused was just too clever to get caught? Has it even crossed DUMBK-HOFF's mind that maybe lack of evidence means the accused is innocent? I shall be watching Mr. Hulshof? I shall be reporting on him. And, Mr. Hulshof, don't even think of trying to become a Senator or Governor or anything else because your own IDIOTIC words will come back to haunt you again and again and again.
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.