To: PJ-Comix
“…Traficant’s an interesting but altogether nutty dude. Whatever good he did for his constituents doesn't erase the fact that he's been convicted of crimes.
By your logic, we had no right to demand Clinton's impeachment and removal because the economy was fine…” 3 posted on 7/29/02 9:32 AM Central by Mr. Bird
By your logic, the government-ordered murder of the Branch Davidians was okay, because the government was declared (by the government) to be innocent of wrongdoing.
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.
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.
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.
By bringing up Waco, you play right into his hands. When he is ranting about being railroaded, he's hoping to hitch a ride on the sympathies of those of us who are wary of the Feds. I'm not buying it. It is not inconsistent to believe that Traficant is guilty along with Reno's Justice Department.
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.
By your logic, the government-ordered murder of the Branch Davidians was okay,YOU'RE overlooking the culpability of Vernon Wayne Howell in his refusal to honor deals he struck -
- the promises he went back on (a promise to release his people from the compound) - deals that included air-time on 50 thouand Watt radio station KRLD (in Dallas) for his 'message' as well as time to write about the Seven Seals (a 'stall' it turns that he perpetrated on us all).
Of course, it is your right to do this (ignore the other half of the coin) to bolster your argument and your 'case'. A weak and dishonest practice - but your right in the end ...