McCain's (alleged) Affair

[Joe Steel]

McCain's affair with a lobbyist is made worse by the related graft and corruption. Apparently, it wasn't just sex, it was sex for political favors. It's disappointing to see in a public official but not surprising in McCain's case considering his lack of honor and integrity.

[Kathianne]

McCain's affair with a lobbyist is made worse by the related graft and corruption. Apparently, it wasn't just se*, it was se* for political favors. It's disappointing to see in a public official but not surprising in McCain's case considering his lack of honor and integrity.

Umm, not defending anything, but where is the related graft and corruption? The source is a 'former friend and confidant.'

[Kathianne]

I found enough, it's related up with the Reform Institute/Soros deal and Tides too. I think there is a lesson to McCain, but probably he's a bit old to get it. BTW, notice the dates:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004010.php


March 8, 2005

Mr. Clean?

CQ reader TR points me to a breaking news item from the AP that alleges a conflict of interest for Senator John McCain. After a non-profit group closely associated with McCain and which pays a six-figure salary to one of his aides received $200,000 in donations from Cablevision, McCain wrote a letter of support to the FCC pushing Cablevision's regulatory positions:


Sen. John McCain pressed a cable company's case for pricing changes with regulators at the same time a tax-exempt group that he has worked with since its founding solicited $200,000 in contributions from the company.

Help from McCain, who argues for ridding politics of big money, included giving the CEO of Cablevision Systems Corp. the opportunity to testify before his Senate committee, writing a letter of support to the Federal Communication Commission and asking other cable companies to support so-called a la carte pricing.

McCain had expressed interest in exploring the a la carte option for years before Cablevision advocated it, but did not take a formal position with regulators until after the company's first donation came in. Cablevision is the eighth largest cable provider, serving about 3 million customers in the New York area.

Cablevision made two $100,000 donations to The Reform Institute in 2003 and 2004. The Reform Institute employs Rick Davis, who also works on McCain's staff as his chief political advisor, and they pay him $110,000 per year. The Reform Institute has often supported McCain, paid for events highlighting him and his agenda, presumably including campaign finance reform.

McCain told the AP that he sees nothing wrong with this arrangement:


"If it was a PAC (political action committee) or if it was somehow connected to any campaign of mine, I would say to you, that's a legitimate appearance of conflict of interest. But it's not," McCain told The Associated Press.

"There's not a conflict of interest when you're involved in an organization that is nonpartisan, nonprofit, nonpolitical."

Quite frankly, this stinks. Here we have a man who has done more harm to the First Amendment as anyone in the past generation, all the while scolding us on coordination of electoral efforts, and he's playing a shell game with Cablevision in order to gin up indirect payments to his staff. Davis claims that McCain didn't solicit the donations, but Davis did; according to his own account, he sought out the donation from Cablevision after hearing that they might be interested in funding The Reform Institute. Coincidentally, McCain starts writing letters and making phone calls on behalf of Cablevision shortly after the first installment gets cashed by Davis and the Reform Institute. Under the BCRA, this kind of activity would easily qualify as coordination if they had pulled off this stunt during an election. It may still qualify as a conflict of interest under federal law, and possibly an illegal campaign contribution.

John McCain sold out to Charles Keating fourteen years ago in the S&L scandals, and rebranded himself as an outsider and a reformer, blaming the system rather than himself for his actions. It now appears that McCain isn't the Mr. Clean he's sold to Arizona voters.

UPDATE: Corrected Reform Institute's name in several points.

UPDATE II: Why doesn't Cablevision appear on this list of donors? Perhaps because Cablevision hid the donations in its subsidiary, CSC Holdings. Notice that the Tides Foundation also donates to the RI, to the tune of over $50,000. Tides, of course, received millions of dollars from Teresa Heinz Kerry, meaning that Rick Davis -- McCain's chief political advisor -- benefits financially from the wife of the erstwhile Democratic nominee. No wonder McCain played footsie with Kerry about the VP slot for a while. (h/t: CQ reader JR Pascucci)

Front Page Magazine has more on Tides:


Teresa Heinz Kerry has financed the secretive Tides Foundation to the tune of more than $4 million over the years. The Tides Foundation, a �charity� established in 1976 by antiwar leftist activist Drummond Pike, distributes millions of dollars in grants every year to political organizations advocating far-Left causes. The Tides Foundation and its closely allied Tides Center, which was spun off from the Foundation in 1996 but run by Drummond Pike, distributed nearly $66 million in grants in 2002 alone. In all, Tides has distributed more than $300 million for the Left. These funds went to rabid antiwar demonstrators, anti-trade demonstrators, domestic Islamist organizations, pro-terrorists legal groups, environmentalists, abortion partisans, extremist homosexual activists and open borders advocates.

And now we find out that they fund McCain's chief political advisor, too. How coincidental....

[flaja]

The man was scum long before this. By his own admission his philandering broke up his first marriage.

Unfortunately this won’t stop McCain. The Democrats (especially Hillary) won’t go after him because they don’t want people digging too much into their own affairs (no pun intended). And if Slick proves anything, the American People don’t care. They no longer worry about honestly and integrity in the people they let assume high office.

[DrJohn]

So McCain prostituted his office and himself.

I am surprised.... should I be?

[Joe Steel]

As far as this lobbyist is concerned, he did seem to peform favors. He wrote letters to the FCC on behalf of her clients.

And then there's the Keating Five business. McCain was part of that bunch.

[manu1959]

the moderates independants and libs that loved clinton should love this....one more reason for the left to vote mccain....

[glockmail]

This is laughable. Both the lobbyist and McCain deny anything. Plus I've seen pictures- she's nothing to blow a marraige over. When you're married to a 10 you don't have an affair with a 6 or 7.

http://selflaugh.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/photo-vicki-iseman-in-middle-of-mccain-lobbyist-scandal/

http://celebrity-pictures-gossip.com/cindy-mccain/cindy-mccain-john-mccain%e2%80%99s-wife/

[flaja]

This is laughable. Both the lobbyist and McCain deny anything. Plus I've seen pictures- she's nothing to blow a marraige over. When you're married to a 10 you don't have an affair with a 6 or 7.

I guess you’ve never seen pictures of Paula Jones.

As for McCain, his history shows how much he values marriage. As long as he can get his jollies, I doubt that he cares how ugly the woman is.

Even if you are married to a 1, you don't have the right to have an affair.

But since you seem to accept McCain even though he is a philander, may I ask how often do you cheat on your wife?

[manu1959]

I guess you’ve never seen pictures of Paula Jones.

As for McCain, his history shows how much he values marriage. As long as he can get his jollies, I doubt that he cares how ugly the woman is.

Even if you are married to a 1, you don't have the right to have an affair.

But since you seem to accept McCain even though he is a philander, may I ask how often do you cheat on your wife?

just out of curiosity who are you to pass judgment on others.........

[glockmail]

..... how often do you cheat on your wife?

I have never cheated on my wife. FUCK YOU.

[glockmail]

just out of curiosity who are you to pass judgment on others.........
Obviously a liberal. It's part of their mental disorder. :pee:

[DrJohn]

Obviously a liberal. It's part of their mental disorder. :pee:


So Guliani and Gingrich are 'liberal'. too?

[manu1959]

So Guliani and Gingrich are 'liberal'. too?

it is about passing judgement on others ... not infidelity ... i thought what people did behinde closed doors was their business...

[truthmatters]

Its the favors that matter. His sex life is none of my business. He and his wife may very well have an open marriage. It is not our business what they do as long as they are consenting adults.

I Do not like the idea of him giving political favors for sex or whatever reason he gave them to her clients.

He wants to work for us and I dont want someone in office who thinks the shit belongs to him to give it away for ANY reason.

[avatar4321]

I guess you’ve never seen pictures of Paula Jones.

As for McCain, his history shows how much he values marriage. As long as he can get his jollies, I doubt that he cares how ugly the woman is.

Even if you are married to a 1, you don't have the right to have an affair.

But since you seem to accept McCain even though he is a philander, may I ask how often do you cheat on your wife?

Paula Jones was Clinton. And Clinton was never married to a 10.

[avatar4321]

McCain is speaking up that this is false. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve him at this point. so i figure ill wait to see how things play out.

[flaja]

I have never cheated on my wife. FUCK YOU.

You say you haven’t cheated on your wife, but yet McCain’s repeated cheatings on his wife doesn’t bother you? This doesn’t add up. Why would you support a candidate for public office whose standards of conduct are lower than your own?

[glockmail]

You say you haven’t cheated on your wife, but yet McCain’s repeated cheatings on his wife doesn’t bother you? This doesn’t add up. Why would you support a candidate for public office whose standards of conduct are lower than your own? You have no fucking proof that McCain cheated on his wife. FUCK YOU again. And shove the NYT up your ass.

[flaja]

So Guliani and Gingrich are 'liberal'. too?


Giuliani is a liberal by just about everybody’s definition other than his own.

Gingrinch is a philandering scumbag as bad as McCain. And he’s a hypocrite to boot. Nobody can preach family values when he has no such values himself.

[manu1959]

You say you haven’t cheated on your wife, but yet McCain’s repeated cheatings on his wife doesn’t bother you? This doesn’t add up. Why would you support a candidate for public office whose standards of conduct are lower than your own?

as we have been taught of the years.....we should be tollerant and accepting of non-traditional behaviour.....even if it is not behaviour that we would participate in or condone.....

your tax dollars at work......

[glockmail]

Giuliani is a liberal by just about everybody’s definition other than his own.

Gingrinch is a philandering scumbag as bad as McCain. And he’s a hypocrite to boot. Nobody can preach family values when he has no such values himself.

Gee I don't see the words "family values" anywhere in this wiki article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

[avatar4321]

Giuliani is a liberal by just about everybody’s definition other than his own.

Gingrinch is a philandering scumbag as bad as McCain. And he’s a hypocrite to boot. Nobody can preach family values when he has no such values himself.

I disagree because I believe in Repentence. You don't have to be perfect to advocate true principles. The idea that no one can support a value while falling short is an excuse by people who dont want to listen to the truth.

[flaja]

it is about passing judgement on others ... not infidelity ... i thought what people did behinde closed doors was their business...

What about when it leads to public corruption or makes someone subject to blackmail that imperils the public’s safety??

What people do in private does speak to the character they display in public.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Epistle of James 1:8.

[manu1959]

Nobody can preach family values when he has no such values himself.

you mean like hillary clinton did..........like that....

[truthmatters]

Its the favors that matter. His sex life is none of my business. He and his wife may very well have an open marriage. It is not our business what they do as long as they are consenting adults.

I Do not like the idea of him giving political favors for sex or whatever reason he gave them to her clients.

He wants to work for us and I dont want someone in office who thinks the shit belongs to him to give it away for ANY reason.

[MtnBiker]

whoa, deja vu

[DrJohn]

you mean like hillary clinton did..........like that....

like Clinton,Hart, Newt, Craig, Guliani...

there's a long list.

[Sitarro]

How amazing, I'm listening to Rush talk about how he predicted just this when the NYT endorsed McCain.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Trigg]

They were discussing this on MSNBC this morning. Go down to the video with McCains lawyer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23271556/

I strongly dislike McCain, but I think this might be a smear job by the liberal media.

[Sitarro]

The question is, will the NYTimes report on Hillary's torrid lesbian affairs or better yet, all of the white girls Obammy has scored over the years.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

Obviously a liberal. It's part of their mental disorder.

Don't blame all of us for the dysfunctional behavior of a few.

[Immanuel]

as we have been taught of the years.....we should be tollerant and accepting of non-traditional behaviour.....even if it is not behaviour that we would participate in or condone.....

your tax dollars at work......

Don't you mean brain-washed rather than taught?


Don't blame all of us for the dysfunctional behavior of a few.

Why not? Conservatives are all bunched in with the Religious Right. :)

Not by all liberals mind ya, but by the political philosophy in general. It definitely goes both ways.

Immie

[nevadamedic]

McCain's affair with a lobbyist is made worse by the related graft and corruption. Apparently, it wasn't just sex, it was sex for political favors. It's disappointing to see in a public official but not surprising in McCain's case considering his lack of honor and integrity.

This is nothing but a smear campaign.

[flaja]

you mean like hillary clinton did..........like that....

What gives you the impression that I hold Hillary Clinton in any kind of high regard? I will condemn philandering regardless of what the philanderer’s politics are.

[flaja]

This is nothing but a smear campaign.

Given McCain’s prior behavior, I doubt it.

[nevadamedic]

Given McCain’s prior behavior, I doubt it.

Prior behavior?

[JohnDoe]

I personally don't buy it, and i think motive has to be considered, why release this now, and who benefits, before i'm gonna make up my mind.

This is too early for the Democrats to benefit off of it in my opinion. The NYTimes has been a tool of republicans before to deflect from any republican connection, like using Pincus and jusdith miller in liberal newspapers to promote the administrations agenda by leaking info to them, this came out in the Plame/Libby Trial.....so i am not just speculating here....

I think Huckabee benefits, and maybe a draft Romney at convention push wins, and maybe the conservative right that does not like mccain benefits etc...

The "tactic" is republican, the newpaper used is Liberal....

I say the "tactic" is republican because of the smear campaign on mccain in 2000 primaries, regarding him fathering a black child that came from a Republican Operative that supported president Bush.

Also, Republican operatives financed the Swift Boating of Kerry, and also another smear on mccain saying he was a coward and squealed when a POW in vietnam, and the hit on max clealand....

Now I KNOWWWWWWWW you all are going to point out that i am looking at this from a liberal's perspective....cuz I am a Democrat, and maybe rightfully so, but I really think some of what i am saying has some teeth to it when you ask the question of "Who Benefits" from the scandal the most....

jd

[nevadamedic]

The question is, will the NYTimes report on Hillary's torrid lesbian affairs or better yet, all of the white girls Obammy has scored over the years.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Or all of th gay sex Obama has had or all of the drugs he has done?

[nevadamedic]

I personally don't buy it, and i think motive has to be considered, why release this now, and who benefits, before i'm gonna make up my mind.

This is too early for the Democrats to benefit off of it in my opinion. The NYTimes has been a tool of republicans before to deflect from any republican connection, like using Pincus and jusdith miller in liberal newspapers to promote the administrations agenda by leaking info to them, this came out in the Plame/Libby Trial.....so i am not just speculating here....

I think Huckabee benefits, and maybe a draft Romney at convention push wins, and maybe the conservative right that does not like mccain benefits etc...

The "tactic" is republican, the newpaper used is Liberal....

I say the "tactic" is republican because of the smear campaign on mccain in 2000 primaries, regarding him fathering a black child that came from a Republican Operative that supported president Bush.

Also, Republican operatives financed the Swift Boating of Kerry, and also another smear on mccain saying he was a coward and squealed when a POW in vietnam, and the hit on max clealand....

Now I KNOWWWWWWWW you all are going to point out that i am looking at this from a liberal's perspective....cuz I am a Democrat, and maybe rightfully so, but I really think some of what i am saying has some teeth to it when you ask the question of "Who Benefits" from the scandal the most....

jd

That operativ was Karl Rove.

[flaja]

Prior behavior?


Sleeping around. By his own admission his philandering is what broke up his first marriage. I don’t doubt for one second that McCain was sleeping with this lobbyist or some other women with whom was working at the time.

[flaja]

I personally don't buy it, and i think motive has to be considered, why release this now, and who benefits, before i'm gonna make up my mind.

If the allegations (that turned out to be true) made against Slick Clinton in 1992 didn’t benefit anybody, i.e., he still ended up in the Oval Office, what makes you think anyone could benefit from these allegations against McCain?


I think Huckabee benefits, and maybe a draft Romney at convention push wins, and maybe the conservative right that does not like mccain benefits etc...

I wouldn't count on it. I don't see how Romney is any more acceptable to the conservative base than McCain is and Huckabee is only marginally better than Romney.

[Joe Steel]

This is nothing but a smear campaign.

McCain sold political influence. Maybe it was for sex. Maybe it was just for companionship. Either way, it's disturbing. What would he sell if he were president?

[5stringJeff]

Avoid this whole mess: vote Libertarian!!! :thumb:

[Kathianne]

McCain sold political influence. Maybe it was for sex. Maybe it was just for companionship. Either way, it's disturbing. What would he sell if he were president?

Where did he sell influence? Face up, this is a story the NYT was sitting on for years, the 'affair' and story are from nearly 10 years ago. They had this when they endorsed him and said nothing.

All this story does is reinforce the reason why GOP folks should forget trying to gain influence with the MSM or cross the aisle. The MSM, especially the failing Gray Lady, have an agenda so obvious that even the least political among us warned of their turning on McCain once they knocked out the other candidates. They are not going to let him start on Obama even before Hillary gets out.

[jimnyc]

Who would have an affair with McCain? Isn't that like necrophilia?

[Kathianne]

Who would have an affair with McCain? Isn't that like necrophilia?

It was in 1998, how old would he have been then? Power is attractive, always has been. ;)

[manu1959]

can anyone prove this affair took place....so far all i have is the NY times which endorsed mccain now saying he shacked up wit a lobbyist.....mccain and the woman both say they ......"did not have sexual relations"...... further the two former self admited dissgruntled employees say they have no proof and are only guessing and last but not least mccains voting record shows he voted against this woman's companies on occasion.....

now if you can find me a blue dress or a cigar then i will listen....

[manu1959]

It was in 1998, how old would he have been then? Power is attractive, always has been. ;)

still would have required a blue pill and a paper bag........

[flaja]

can anyone prove this affair took place....so far all i have is the NY times which endorsed mccain now saying he shacked up wit a lobbyist.....mccain and the woman both say they ......"did not have sexual relations"...... further the two former self admited dissgruntled employees say they have no proof and are only guessing and last but not least mccains voting record shows he voted against this woman's companies on occasion.....

now if you can find me a blue dress or a cigar then i will listen....

From what I heard on TV today both New Republic and the Washington Post now have similar stories.

BTW: If there is nothing to this story, how is it that McCain already had a lawyer at the ready to spend the day doing PR on TV? And just what made McCain choose the same lawyer that worked for Bill Clinton?

[Kathianne]

still would have required a blue pill and a paper bag........

True enuf. I don't know if he did or didn't. I'm more curious about why the NY Times would sit on this story, while endorsing him as the candidate, not releasing until after he was so far ahead that he could start on acting for general election.

[manu1959]

True enuf. I don't know if he did or didn't. I'm more curious about why the NY Times would sit on this story, while endorsing him as the candidate, not releasing until after he was so far ahead that he could start on acting for general election.

well they started the story in nov 07......the originator quit because they were sitting on it....then the endorse him ....then the roll out the story....and sell lots of papers.....they did this with clinton as well.....

[manu1959]

From what I heard on TV today both New Republic and the Washington Post now have similar stories.

BTW: If there is nothing to this story, how is it that McCain already had a lawyer at the ready to spend the day doing PR on TV? And just what made McCain choose the same lawyer that worked for Bill Clinton?

the story came out last night.....tell me why the times sat on the story since nov of 07 when mccain was out of it.....now suddenly it is news....

or why they would endorse him knowing they had this story.....

[avatar4321]

From what I heard on TV today both New Republic and the Washington Post now have similar stories.

BTW: If there is nothing to this story, how is it that McCain already had a lawyer at the ready to spend the day doing PR on TV? And just what made McCain choose the same lawyer that worked for Bill Clinton?

because no one running for President would be stupid enough not to have several lawyers.

[Kathianne]

well they started the story in nov 07......the originator quit because they were sitting on it....then the endorse him ....then the roll out the story....and sell lots of papers.....they did this with clinton as well.....

Some inside stuff:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24


The New Republic

The Long Run-Up

Behind the Bombshell in 'The New York Times.'

Gabriel Sherman, The New Republic Published: Thursday, February 21, 2008

John McCain
Getty Images
John McCain


Last night, around dinnertime, The New York Times posted on its website a 3,000-word investigation detailing Senator John McCain's connections to a telecommunications lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. The controversial piece, written by Washington bureau reporters Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn Thompson, Stephen Labaton, and David Kirkpatrick, and published in this morning's paper, explores the possibility that the Republican presidential candidate may have had an affair with the 40-year-old blond-haired lobbyist for the telecommunications industry while he chaired the Senate Commerce Committee in the late-1990s.

Beyond its revelations, however, what's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states: "In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.

What happened? The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn't. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable....

[Dilloduck]

I haven't heard Iseman going public or ballistic about the accusation. Just an observation.

[nevadamedic]

Sleeping around. By his own admission his philandering is what broke up his first marriage. I don’t doubt for one second that McCain was sleeping with this lobbyist or some other women with whom was working at the time.

No what broke up his first marriage was the effects the POW camp had on him. It was to much for his first wife to take.

Get your facts straight.

[nevadamedic]

Noted Democratic attorney Robert Bennett appeared on Fox News Wednesday night and called the Times report nothing more than a "real hit job."


Bennett, brother of conservative pundit Bill Bennett, had served as private counsel to President Bill Clinton in the 1990s during the Paula Jones scandal.

The paper also dredged up McCain's role in the infamous S&L scandal and his collaboration with banker Charles Keating. McCain was named a member of the so-called "Keating Five."

A Senate Ethic Committee probe found that McCain was only guilty of “poor judgment” in the affair. Bennett noted that he served as the Democratic counsel to the committee investigating the five U.S. Senators. Bennett said he concluded that McCain was an "an honest man."

He added that Times report was "shameless" and slammed the paper for publishing the story, which he described as "entirely unsourced."

Full Story...............................
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Bennett_Slams_NY_Times_/2008/02/20/74260.html?s=al&promo_code=45A1-1

[Dilloduck]

No what broke up his first marriage was the effects the POW camp had on him. It was to much for his first wife to take.

Get your facts straight.

AT LAST !!!! We have a White Male Victim we can all rally around !!!

[manu1959]

No what broke up his first marriage was the effects the POW camp had on him. It was to much for his first wife to take.

Get your facts straight.

bitch

[Dilloduck]

bitch

Really---where was her dedication ? He couldn't help himself for God's sake !!!

[Yurt]

No what broke up his first marriage was the effects the POW camp had on him. It was to much for his first wife to take.

Get your facts straight.

:link:

[avatar4321]

No what broke up his first marriage was the effects the POW camp had on him. It was to much for his first wife to take.

Get your facts straight.

the facts are straight. there is a reason Ross Perot hates McCain.

[Kathianne]

Noted Democratic attorney Robert Bennett appeared on Fox News Wednesday night and called the Times report nothing more than a "real hit job."


Bennett, brother of conservative pundit Bill Bennett, had served as private counsel to President Bill Clinton in the 1990s during the Paula Jones scandal.

The paper also dredged up McCain's role in the infamous S&L scandal and his collaboration with banker Charles Keating. McCain was named a member of the so-called "Keating Five."

A Senate Ethic Committee probe found that McCain was only guilty of “poor judgment” in the affair. Bennett noted that he served as the Democratic counsel to the committee investigating the five U.S. Senators. Bennett said he concluded that McCain was an "an honest man."

He added that Times report was "shameless" and slammed the paper for publishing the story, which he described as "entirely unsourced."

Full Story...............................
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Bennett_Slams_NY_Times_/2008/02/20/74260.html?s=al&promo_code=45A1-1
McCain should know the people that are 'giving the message' in his name, if all are like you, Obama will be President come January. You're doing a real great job. :rolleyes:

[actsnoblemartin]

"I had an affair with a donut, why doesnt the media care"

Clinton

:
McCain should know the people that are 'giving the message' in his name, if all are like you, Obama will be President come January. You're doing a real great job. :rolleyes:

[Yurt]

the facts are straight. there is a reason Ross Perot hates McCain.

mayhaps?


The Perot-McCain relationship goes back to McCain's five and a half years of captivity in Hanoi. When McCain's then-wife Carol was in a serious car accident, McCain's mother called Perot for help. "She asked me to send my people to Philadelphia to take care of the family," Perot says. Afterwards, McCain was grateful. "We loved him [Perot] for it," McCain told me in 2000.

Perot doesn't remember it that way. "After he came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history."

Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. "There's evidence, evidence, evidence," Perot claims. "McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827

[Dilloduck]

mayhaps?



http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827


Perot isn't a Hillary hater, but he's not a fan either, relating the bumper sticker he received that reads: "Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife for President."

from the same article :laugh2:

[emmett]

Where did he sell influence? Face up, this is a story the NYT was sitting on for years, the 'affair' and story are from nearly 10 years ago. They had this when they endorsed him and said nothing.

All this story does is reinforce the reason why GOP folks should forget trying to gain influence with the MSM or cross the aisle. The MSM, especially the failing Gray Lady, have an agenda so obvious that even the least political among us warned of their turning on McCain once they knocked out the other candidates. They are not going to let him start on Obama even before Hillary gets out.

NYT did indeed endorse Johnny Mac. Where was all the interest in this supposed affair then. We're waiting........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .............

[flaja]

the story came out last night.....tell me why the times sat on the story since nov of 07 when mccain was out of it.....now suddenly it is news....

or why they would endorse him knowing they had this story.....

My understanding is that the story wasn’t sourced well enough to meet the NYT’s standards and they published it now only because they were about to be scooped.

So if the story came out last night McCain needed what- 12 hours or so, to hire his mouthpiece?

[flaja]

because no one running for President would be stupid enough not to have several lawyers.

The fact that he needs several lawyers to run interference speaks volumes about how bad his character really is. A man who doesn’t do anything wrong, doesn’t need to keep lawyers on retainer.

[flaja]

I haven't heard Iseman going public or ballistic about the accusation. Just an observation.

The company that she works for put out a statement today saying that she didn’t do anything wrong.

But if the story is bogus the woman’s reputation is shattered. So when will she sue the NYT for libel?

Or when will she be taking a job at Revlon?

[flaja]

No what broke up his first marriage was the effects the POW camp had on him. It was to much for his first wife to take.

Get your facts straight.

Then just what will those effects do to him if he makes it to the Oval Office? If his POW time was so stressful that he couldn’t keep a marriage together, how does anyone expect him to keep the country together?

[Yurt]

Then just what will those effects do to him if he makes it to the Oval Office? If his POW time was so stressful that he couldn’t keep a marriage together, how does anyone expect him to keep the country together?

so being a POW and POTUS are the same thing?

[Yurt]

The fact that he needs several lawyers to run interference speaks volumes about how bad his character really is. A man who doesn’t do anything wrong, doesn’t need to keep lawyers on retainer.

why does the US have an attorney general?

[nevadamedic]

mayhaps?



http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827

Sounds like Ross Perot is listening to the voices in his head again.

[nevadamedic]

Then just what will those effects do to him if he makes it to the Oval Office? If his POW time was so stressful that he couldn’t keep a marriage together, how does anyone expect him to keep the country together?

He has kept a marriage together with his current wife for years. he also is very close friends with his ex wife. He is probably more together then you ever will be.

[flaja]

so being a POW and POTUS are the same thing?

That’s not what I said. If post-traumatic stress disorder is a real condition and it lead to the break up of McCain’s first marriage, what guarantee do we have that it won’t disrupt his ability to be president? If McCain is mentally unbalanced, is he fit to be president?

[flaja]

why does the US have an attorney general?

To prosecute criminals.

[flaja]

He has kept a marriage together with his current wife for years. he also is very close friends with his ex wife. He is probably more together then you ever will be.


I’m not the saying that he is mentally unbalanced due to having been a POW; his supporters are the people saying this.

All I am saying is that he is morally unbalanced and this alone makes him unfit for public office.

[Dilloduck]

I’m not the saying that he is mentally unbalanced due to having been a POW; his supporters are the people saying this.

All I am saying is that he is morally unbalanced and this alone makes him unfit for public office.

That sounds dangerously close to a religious test.

[JohnDoe]

I don't believe this is being looked at right....

The issue with Mccain on this has to do with tit for tat....no pun intended....

not his sexual relationship, IF THERE WAS ONE, which i doubt at this point because it is hearsay...

But it is his cozyness with lobbyists and him going out of his way for favored legislation, WHEN he has been a supposed Maverick fighting against these type of tit for tat relationships in congress imo.

jd

[Dilloduck]

I don't believe this is being looked at right....

The issue with Mccain on this has to do with tit for tat....no pun intended....

not his sexual relationship, IF THERE WAS ONE, which i doubt at this point because it is hearsay...

But it is his cozyness with lobbyists and him going out of his way for favored legislation, WHEN he has been a supposed Maverick fighting against these type of tit for tat relationships in congress imo.

jd

There is no proof of any "tit for tat" either.

[CockySOB]

The fact that he needs several lawyers to run interference speaks volumes about how bad his character really is. A man who doesn’t do anything wrong, doesn’t need to keep lawyers on retainer.

That's naive. Modern American society has become so litigious that anyone in ANY administrative position (or seeking such) should have a solid business relationship with legal representation, including keeping such representation on retainer. That's a sad fact, but it IS a fact.

[flaja]

That sounds dangerously close to a religious test.

How so? Isn't adultery condemned by most organized religions? So what test am I applying?

[flaja]

I don't believe this is being looked at right....

The issue with Mccain on this has to do with tit for tat....no pun intended....

not his sexual relationship, IF THERE WAS ONE, which i doubt at this point because it is hearsay...

But it is his cozyness with lobbyists and him going out of his way for favored legislation, WHEN he has been a supposed Maverick fighting against these type of tit for tat relationships in congress imo.

jd

If McCain is supposed to be such a Maverick, someone who is willing buck the normal way of doing business in D.C., would he have been given the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee? Why would the other senators have put the “Maverick” McCain in a position where he could disrupt their relationships with lobbyists?

BTW: If a man has a history of sleeping around, then isn’t he too susceptible to sexual favors in exchange for corruption? McCain’s sex life [b]is[/i] the heart of this matter.

[flaja]

That's naive. Modern American society has become so litigious that anyone in ANY administrative position (or seeking such) should have a solid business relationship with legal representation, including keeping such representation on retainer. That's a sad fact, but it IS a fact.


But if McCain has done nothing wrong, why send out his lawyer as opposed to his campaign manager?

[CockySOB]

But if McCain has done nothing wrong, why send out his lawyer as opposed to his campaign manager?

I would think because the allegations made against McCain involve legal issues, a legal representative would be the preferred choice. Were this simply a matter of McCain's voting record, or perhaps of back-room deals which were coming to light, then a campaign manager would suffice. But such is not the case here.

Allegations must be taken seriously by the accused, all the more so when the allegations involve criminal charges. And the article about McCain does raise some allegations which would be considered under the US Codes.

Frankly, only a fool would not seek immediate legal representation if someone makes public allegations of criminal wrongdoing against them.

[flaja]

I would think because the allegations made against McCain involve legal issues, a legal representative would be the preferred choice.

But if the charges are baseless, why is McCain treating them as a legal issue rather than a political issue? Using his lawyer shows the public that McCain thinks he has a legal issue to deal with. So what makes McCain think that he may be guilty of something?


Were this simply a matter of McCain's voting record, or perhaps of back-room deals which were coming to light, then a campaign manager would suffice. But such is not the case here.

If McCain doesn’t think he did anything against the law, why is he not treating this issue as a political issue? McCain wants us to believe his efforts on behalf of Iseman’s clients were routine government business, i.e., a political issue. But he is not treating the issue as such.


Frankly, only a fool would not seek immediate legal representation if someone makes public allegations of criminal wrongdoing against them.

If the accusations are false (and especially if they are politically motivated) my first legal response would be to start a lawsuit, not put my lawyer on national TV trying to salvage an election campaign.

[CockySOB]

I don't think I can put this any plainer, or any simpler for you.

CYOA - Cover Your Own Ass

McCain is putting his legal representative up to handle this in case any legal issues DO develop; and, at the same time his legal representative is able to put a bit of legal muscle behind McCain's denials that anything happened.

I really don't get where this "if he's innocent, then why get a lawyer" shtick is coming from. As I said, anyone in ANY position of authority whether in private or public sector has to have a solid, working relationship with legal counsel. That's a fact of life which has come about due to the litigious nature of modern American society.

[red states rule]

The bottom line is, it took the DNC Times 4 months to come up witht a story that says 2 unnamed former staffer think there may have been an affair between McCain and this women

Now, libs are trying to make somthing out of McCain sending a letter asking for a government committee to just make a decsion on a commerce issue after 400 days of thinking about it

Libs must be having second, third, and fourth thoughts over how well they do in November if they have try and use this as a smear piece on McCain

It is backfiring - like Dan Rathers attempted smear piece on Pres Bush using forged documents to try and tip the election to Kerry

[flaja]

I really don't get where this "if he's innocent, then why get a lawyer" shtick is coming from. As I said, anyone in ANY position of authority whether in private or public sector has to have a solid, working relationship with legal counsel.

You don’t expect much from your elected officials, do you?

Four of the top five advisors to McCain’s presidential campaign either work for lobbying firms or manage lobbying firms, and today the co-chair of McCain’s Arizona campaign was indicted on 35 criminal charges including money laundering and conspiracy.

It wouldn’t surprise me one bit to find out that McCain is as crocked as the day is long.


That's a fact of life which has come about due to the litigious nature of modern American society.

Isn't litigation more of a civil court concern rather than a criminal court concern? I can see having a lawyer to sue for libel or slander, but Bennett(sp?) is a criminal defense lawyer.

[red states rule]

You don’t expect much from your elected officials, do you?

Four of the top five advisors to McCain’s presidential campaign either work for lobbying firms or manage lobbying firms, and today the co-chair of McCain’s Arizona campaign was indicted on 35 criminal charges including money laundering and conspiracy.

It wouldn’t surprise me one bit to find out that McCain is as crocked as the day is long.



Isn't litigation more of a civil court concern rather than a criminal court concern? I can see having a lawyer to sue for libel or slander, but Bennett(sp?) is a criminal defense lawyer.

How many elected reps do NOT have former lobbiests working for them?

My how you libs must be hard up to try and save the DNC Times from taking their medicine for this lame attempt to smear McCain

[red states rule]

I don't believe this is being looked at right....

The issue with Mccain on this has to do with tit for tat....no pun intended....

not his sexual relationship, IF THERE WAS ONE, which i doubt at this point because it is hearsay...

But it is his cozyness with lobbyists and him going out of his way for favored legislation, WHEN he has been a supposed Maverick fighting against these type of tit for tat relationships in congress imo.

jd

BTW, where is the DNC Times on this guy using a provate jet, then doing a favor for the owner?

Oh he has a (D) at the end of his name - that is why there is nothing in the DNC Times about his actions


Hazards of Borrowing Private Jets
Wednesday, February 20, 2008

By John Gibson

You may have noticed the biggest and best perk for any aspiring movie star, rock mogul or corporate big shot is moving from flying commercial to flying private.

As Barack Obama said in one of his books private jet travel is great. It's so convenient. It's so, well, private — nobody but you and your friends on the plane. It goes when you're ready to go.

But it takes a lot of money to have a private jet, even a small one, and even part time. Way, way more than a first-class ticket flying commercial.

Even a guy like Bill Clinton — who has made millions giving speeches since he left office — still can't afford his own private jet.

So Bubba has been flying OPJ — Other People's Jets.

In fact, Bill Clinton has gotten himself hooked up with a Canadian mining mogul named Frank Giustra evidently because Giustra has a big private jet. And he seems to let Bubba use it about anytime he wants for anything he wants.

The former president flies to paid speeches on it, he flies to fund-raise for Hillary and he flies to raise millions for the Clinton Foundation.

Giustra is such a generous guy with his private jet. It costs thousands and thousands per hour to operate. But Giustra evidently says, hey, who's counting?

Giustra was trying to move along a half-billion dollar deal with Kazakhstan to mine uranium fields in that country.

His new best friend, Bill Clinton, the same one who uses his jet all the time, just happened to know the president of Kazakhstan so they flew off to Almaty, Kazakhstan’s largest city, and they had dinner with president Nazarbayev, who is reputed to be one of the most corrupt leaders of a country in the world.

Giustra's half-billion dollar deal came though and Clinton got a half-million dollar check from Nazarbayev for his Clinton Foundation. God only knows what the president of Kazakhstan got.

It's nice to know people with private jets, isn't it? Nicer still to know a former president of the United States who likes private jets.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331562,00.html

[flaja]

How many elected reps do NOT have former lobbiests working for them?

Probably not many, but they, unlike McCain, are not running for presidnet on the promise that they are not a Washinigton insider.


My how you libs must be hard up to try and save the DNC Times from taking their medicine for this lame attempt to smear McCain

I am not a liberal, as my disgust with McCain shows.

[Dilloduck]

How so? Isn't adultery condemned by most organized religions? So what test am I applying?

The same one that those religions use.

[manu1959]

How so? Isn't adultery condemned by most organized religions? So what test am I applying?

there is to be no religious test to be president.....

[JohnDoe]

You don’t expect much from your elected officials, do you?

Four of the top five advisors to McCain’s presidential campaign either work for lobbying firms or manage lobbying firms, and today the co-chair of McCain’s Arizona campaign was indicted on 35 criminal charges including money laundering and conspiracy.

It wouldn’t surprise me one bit to find out that McCain is as crocked as the day is long.



Isn't litigation more of a civil court concern rather than a criminal court concern? I can see having a lawyer to sue for libel or slander, but Bennett(sp?) is a criminal defense lawyer.

Well, I think you do make a good point with him hiring a crimminal lawyer to handle what seems to be a civil situation... that's something to consider.

But outside of that, i think that it is normal to get a lawyer now adays, look what happens to ya if ya don't and try to handle things on your own, like Kerry did in the last campaign when he was swift boated and even Larry Craig, with his bathroom wide stance incident....if he had hired a lawyer, he wouldn't have been in the mess he got himself in to...

I heard on the News tonight about the republican congressman i believe of arizona that was indicted on many, many various felonies, i did not know that he was the head of mccain's campaign for that state....even so, that does not mean mccain was connected in any way to what this man has allegedly done...

There may be smoke here, and where there is smoke there is fire, as the saying goes....but as far as i am concerned, i don't see any evidence of real wrong doing, the law allows lobbying and proof of a tit for tat is hard to prove....it just looks bad for the maverick, like he is being hypocritical stabbing other republicans in office for this type of stuff while still doing it himself.

jd

[Yurt]

Sounds like Ross Perot is listening to the voices in his head again.

what ever max head room

http://bifsniff.com/wp-content/files/2007/01/max-2.bmp




That’s not what I said. If post-traumatic stress disorder is a real condition and it lead to the break up of McCain’s first marriage, what guarantee do we have that it won’t disrupt his ability to be president? If McCain is mentally unbalanced, is he fit to be president?

I never said you did, I asked a question seeking to clarify that which you said.

So you're saying (and I clarify YES you are saying) that because one can't keep a marriage intact, they can't be president. For that is the only "unbalanced" thing you are accusing him of, is not keeping his marriage intact.


To prosecute criminals.

so i guess even the good innocent government needs lawyers..... you see, your claim about "only bad people need lawyers" is without merit, foolish and utterly naive considering the overwhelming issues facing a candidate today -- for instance: defamation -- not criminal, but one may want an attorney around when campaigning because if they make a statement, maybe they want to know if it is constitutionally protected.

your ignorance appears boundless

[red states rule]

Well, I think you do make a good point with him hiring a crimminal lawyer to handle what seems to be a civil situation... that's something to consider.

But outside of that, i think that it is normal to get a lawyer now adays, look what happens to ya if ya don't and try to handle things on your own, like Kerry did in the last campaign when he was swift boated and even Larry Craig, with his bathroom wide stance incident....if he had hired a lawyer, he wouldn't have been in the mess he got himself in to...

I heard on the News tonight about the republican congressman i believe of arizona that was indicted on many, many various felonies, i did not know that he was the head of mccain's campaign for that state....even so, that does not mean mccain was connected in any way to what this man has allegedly done...

There may be smoke here, and where there is smoke there is fire, as the saying goes....but as far as i am concerned, i don't see any evidence of real wrong doing, the law allows lobbying and proof of a tit for tat is hard to prove....it just looks bad for the maverick, like he is being hypocritical stabbing other republicans in office for this type of stuff while still doing it himself.

jd

So JD, can you tell me ONE FACT the DNC Times uncovered and "reported" in their story?

[red states rule]

Now the moonbat left is going with kook conspiracy theories


Behar Wonders: 'Right Wing' Planted McCain Story?
By Justin McCarthy | February 21, 2008 - 11:30 ET

Discussing the recent New York Times smear of John McCain and alleged inappropriate relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, "View" co-host Joy Behar, who floated conspiracy theories in the past, floated another one today.

"Is there any possibility that- I'm just throwing this out, and Bill O'Reilly will call me a 'pinhead' for this. But is there any possibility that the right wing of the party, the real conservative Limbaugh, Huckabee, that group, planted this article? Like they're behind it? Because they're too trying to cut his legs off."

The show led off with The New York Times story. Joy Behar, to her credit, did express some skepticism of the report believing Iseman “has an ax to grind.” Elisabeth Hasselbeck attacked the Times’ liberal bias adding that this is a “smear campaign.” Barbara Walters stepped in to defend the Times adding the delayed release maybe because “ they had to get all of their facts together” and she was “not sure that it was a malicious attempt on The New York Times to do it right now.” Hasselbeck added that she did indeed feel it was a malicious attempt.


for the complete article and the video

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/02/21/joy-behar-questions-if-right-wing-planted-mccain-story

[PostmodernProphet]

There may be smoke here, and where there is smoke there is fire

blow smoke, insinuate fire.....American politics......

[red states rule]

blow smoke, insinuate fire.....American politics......

On this McCain issue we agree

There are plenty of things to call McCain on, but I will give him credit on this one

The DNC Times did nothing but a slime job on him.

[flaja]

there is to be no religious test to be president.....

How is excluding someone who cannot stay faithful to his wife a religious test?

[red states rule]

How is excluding someone who cannot stay faithful to his wife a religious test?

If they are not willing to honor a oath they make to God - why would they honor a oath they make to us?

[flaja]

Well, I think you do make a good point with him hiring a crimminal lawyer to handle what seems to be a civil situation... that's something to consider.

And if it is a civil situation it is seldom a good idea to talk publicly about litigation that is in progress or which may soon be pending.


But outside of that, i think that it is normal to get a lawyer now adays, look what happens to ya if ya don't and try to handle things on your own, like Kerry did in the last campaign when he was swift boated and even Larry Craig, with his bathroom wide stance incident....if he had hired a lawyer, he wouldn't have been in the mess he got himself in to...

But McCain has tried to handle things on his own with his press conference at which he denied everything the NYT was saying/implying.


I heard on the News tonight about the republican congressman i believe of arizona that was indicted on many, many various felonies, i did not know that he was the head of mccain's campaign for that state....

He’s the co-chairman of McCain’s Arizona campaign.


even so, that does not mean mccain was connected in any way to what this man has allegedly done...

It does show that McCain is a poor judge of character.

[flaja]

So you're saying (and I clarify YES you are saying) that because one can't keep a marriage intact, they can't be president. For that is the only "unbalanced" thing you are accusing him of, is not keeping his marriage intact.

I said that he is morally unbalanced due to his adultery. I have never said, nor do I mean to imply, that McCain is mentally unbalanced because of Nam or anything else. He committed adultery because of his low morals; Vietnam has nothing to do with it.

But, anyone who wishes to blame his adultery on his having been a POW must consider how his having been a POW could affect his performance in the Oval Office.

[red states rule]

I said that he is morally unbalanced due to his adultery. I have never said, nor do I mean to imply, that McCain is mentally unbalanced because of Nam or anything else. He committed adultery because of his low morals; Vietnam has nothing to do with it.

But, anyone who wishes to blame his adultery on his having been a POW must consider how his having been a POW could affect his performance in the Oval Office.

What adultery? Not a single fact has been presented to show McCain cheated on his wife

[flaja]

So JD, can you tell me ONE FACT the DNC Times uncovered and "reported" in their story?


If he slept with Iseman, I’m not surprised. But how are his letters to a regulatory body not interfering with how that body does its work? And how can such interference be legally or morally right? Aren’t regulatory bodies supposed to be independent of politics? Aren’t they supposed to be immune from congressional pressure?

[red states rule]

If he slept with Iseman, I’m not surprised. But how are his letters to a regulatory body not interfering with how that body does its work? And how can such interference be legally or morally right? Aren’t regulatory bodies supposed to be independent of politics? Aren’t they supposed to be immune from congressional pressure?

Like the DNC Times, you are ASSUMING he did

McCAin did nothing wrong - nothing. Yet it did not stop the DNC Times from running a hit oiece on McCain for the sole purpose of hurting his campaign

[CockySOB]

You don’t expect much from your elected officials, do you?
Nope. Professional politicians are slime-balls at best.


It wouldn’t surprise me one bit to find out that McCain is as crocked as the day is long.
Wouldn't surprise me either.


Isn't litigation more of a civil court concern rather than a criminal court concern? I can see having a lawyer to sue for libel or slander, but Bennett(sp?) is a criminal defense lawyer.
If the allegations raised in the Times article were to be investigated, it would be in the form of criminal charges, not civil litigation. Remember, the allegations pertained to improper use of Congressional office, authority and influence - all of which carry criminal (Federal) penalties.

[flaja]

Like the DNC Times, you are ASSUMING he did

With his record, it doesn't take much to make this assumption.


McCAin did nothing wrong - nothing. Yet it did not stop the DNC Times from running a hit oiece on McCain for the sole purpose of hurting his campaign

Interfering with an independent regulatory agency for the benefit of his girlfriend’s clients?

[flaja]

If the allegations raised in the Times article were to be investigated, it would be in the form of criminal charges, not civil litigation.

If the charges are patently false, as McCain says they are, why would there be an investigation?

[manu1959]

If the charges are patently false, as McCain says they are, why would there be an investigation?

so anyone investigated is autonmaticly guilty of the charges levied against them.....

why investigate then just put them in jail....

[manu1959]

With his record, it doesn't take much to make this assumption.
Interfering with an independent regulatory agency for the benefit of his girlfriend’s clients?

you really should go pull his votes in relation to these companies .... you will find at times he voted against them.....

[flaja]

so anyone investigated is autonmaticly guilty of the charges levied against them.....

why investigate then just put them in jail....


How and when did I say this? What would the government investigate if there is no credible evidence of wrong-doing? McCain flat out denied any wrong-doing in regards to the NYT story. So why should he expect to be investigated? And if he doesn’t expect to be investigated, why did he send out a criminal defense attorney to do a whole day of TV PR?

[flaja]

you really should go pull his votes in relation to these companies .... you will find at times he voted against them.....

What record? What exactly did he vote on? My understanding is that approval for what the company wanted to do (i.e., buy two TV stations in the same market) comes from the FCC, not Congress. McCain wrote a letter asking that the FCC speed up the process, i.e., McCain interfered in the workings of an independent regulatory agency.

[manu1959]

How and when did I say this? What would the government investigate if there is no credible evidence of wrong-doing? McCain flat out denied any wrong-doing in regards to the NYT story. So why should he expect to be investigated? And if he doesn’t expect to be investigated, why did he send out a criminal defense attorney to do a whole day of TV PR?

you just said it again...

but don't worry they seem rather preocupied with baseball at the moment.....

if you were accused of something what would you do ignor it and hope for the best...or hire an attorney....

anyway it is called getting ahead of a story......

[CockySOB]

If the charges are patently false, as McCain says they are, why would there be an investigation?

For the last time, McCain doesn't get to have ANY say in whether there is an investigation into his activities or not, all he CAN do is prepare in case such an investigation IS undertaken.

Are you trying to be this obtuse?

[flaja]

you just said it again...

but don't worry they seem rather preocupied with baseball at the moment.....

if you were accused of something what would you do ignor it and hope for the best...or hire an attorney....

anyway it is called getting ahead of a story......

If I know that I had done nothing wrong because I had done nothing wrong, what evdience would there be to investigate? If the charges are baseless, why should I fear any criminal investigation?

[flaja]

For the last time, McCain doesn't get to have ANY say in whether there is an investigation into his activities or not, all he CAN do is prepare in case such an investigation IS undertaken.

Are you trying to be this obtuse?

If McCain had done nothing wrong and thus there is no evidence to indicate that he had done something wrong, how long would the investigation last? Why have an attorney at the ready when you know the investigation won’t has nothing to go on?

[Said1]

If McCain had done nothing wrong and thus there is no evidence to indicate that he had done something wrong, how long would the investigation last? Why have an attorney at the ready when you know the investigation won’t has nothing to go on?

In situations such as that, guilty or innocent, it's always best to have a third party present during an investigation. Someone to tell you when to shut up or mediate etc.

[CockySOB]

If McCain had done nothing wrong and thus there is no evidence to indicate that he had done something wrong, how long would the investigation last? Why have an attorney at the ready when you know the investigation won’t has nothing to go on?

OK, that answers my question - you ARE that obtuse.

[flaja]

OK, that answers my question - you ARE that obtuse.

No. I recognize when someone is acting like a high-classed crook and low-classed scumbag. If the charges implied by the NYT are false and without any foundation, then McCain needs a civil lawyer, not a criminal one.

[CockySOB]

No. I recognize when someone is acting like a high-classed crook and low-classed scumbag. If the charges implied by the NYT are false and without any foundation, then McCain needs a civil lawyer, not a criminal one.

If the allegations made my anonymous sources in the New York Times are given any credibility by ANY of the relevant regulatory and law enforcement agencies, then McCain would need criminal counsel, not civil. By putting forth such a counsel as his spokesman in the matter of the allegations, McCain is being proactive rather than reactive. And for the record, I would hope McCain's legal representatives for civil matters look into the potentially libelous and defamatory article run by the NYT. But that is a separate legal arena, hence McCain's need for counsel in both arenas.

I understand that you're only seeing the potential civil suit of McCain vs. NYT for libel and defamatory statement. But the real issue here is that of the alleged criminal activities and the fact that any allegations must be looked at in a criminal venue by the relevant authorities.

By the way, most participants in a legal action are more concerned with criminal charges rather than civil suits.

[avatar4321]

No. I recognize when someone is acting like a high-classed crook and low-classed scumbag. If the charges implied by the NYT are false and without any foundation, then McCain needs a civil lawyer, not a criminal one.

Contrary to your opinion, lawyers are not really divided between civil and criminal lawyers. Any lawyer is qualified to practice any time of law although he may decline such action.

Anyone of prominence who doesnt have a lawyer, is an idiot.

[flaja]

If the allegations made my anonymous sources in the New York Times are given any credibility by ANY of the relevant regulatory and law enforcement agencies, then McCain would need criminal counsel, not civil.

Why would any regulatory or law enforcement agency give any credibility to unnamed sources? First the government would have to go after the NYT to get the names of the sources and by the time that 1st Amendment fight was over the election would be long past. There is no reason for McCain to act like a criminal with something to hide at this point if he is not a criminal with something to hide.


By putting forth such a counsel as his spokesman in the matter of the allegations, McCain is being proactive rather than reactive. And for the record, I would hope McCain's legal representatives for civil matters look into the potentially libelous and defamatory article run by the NYT. But that is a separate legal arena, hence McCain's need for counsel in both arenas.

If there are grounds for a civil law suit, there are no grounds for a criminal investigation because what the NYT times has said is false. The sources will either never be identified or will recant their story if they are.


I understand that you're only seeing the potential civil suit of McCain vs. NYT for libel and defamatory statement. But the real issue here is that of the alleged criminal activities and the fact that any allegations must be looked at in a criminal venue by the relevant authorities.

I don’t see where the allegations of the NYT, based on unnamed sources, are sufficient cause to have a criminal investigation. If the sources were named and thus could be questioned under oath, then a criminal investigation would be warranted. McCain’s response to the NYT makes me think that trying to find out whose these sources are is something that needs to be done.


By the way, most participants in a legal action are more concerned with criminal charges rather than civil suits.

So you admit that McCain has engaged in criminal activity?

[flaja]

Contrary to your opinion, lawyers are not really divided between civil and criminal lawyers. Any lawyer is qualified to practice any time of law although he may decline such action.

Anyone of prominence who doesnt have a lawyer, is an idiot.

Most lawyers do specialize in practice because the rules of evidence are so different between a criminal trial and a civil trial. If a lawyer has spent his lifetime defending people in criminal trials, it would be foolish to have him represent someone in a civil lawsuit.

[Abbey Marie]

But if the charges are baseless, why is McCain treating them as a legal issue rather than a political issue? Using his lawyer shows the public that McCain thinks he has a legal issue to deal with. So what makes McCain think that he may be guilty of something?



If McCain doesn’t think he did anything against the law, why is he not treating this issue as a political issue? McCain wants us to believe his efforts on behalf of Iseman’s clients were routine government business, i.e., a political issue. But he is not treating the issue as such.



If the accusations are false (and especially if they are politically motivated) my first legal response would be to start a lawsuit, not put my lawyer on national TV trying to salvage an election campaign.


The accusations against the Duke lacrosse players were baseless. Should they have not hired lawyers? Think they would have done well without them? Your arguments about McCain's hiring a lawyer are about the most naive (or phony?) as I have ever seen on a message board. Seriously, flaja, you need to try a different tack. That dog won't hunt around here.

Btw, where's your proof that McCain is "morally unbalanced"? Link us up.

[manu1959]

If I know that I had done nothing wrong because I had done nothing wrong, what evdience would there be to investigate? If the charges are baseless, why should I fear any criminal investigation?

there would be no evidence only suspicion.....and there would be nothing to fear......

yet if you choose not to defend yourself against the attacks .... that is your choice.....

you imply that defending ones self makes one guilty....absurd....

[CockySOB]

Abbey, I was thinking the exact same thing. I would have posted, but I am beginning to wonder if flaja is even capable of looking at the issue objectively.

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey, I was thinking the exact same thing. I would have posted, but I am beginning to wonder if flaja is even capable of looking at the issue objectively.

I know what you mean. Based on innuendo, the scarlet A is already sown on McCain's lapel, it would seem.

[Said1]

I wonder if flaja knows she/he/it is arguing with lawyers? :laugh2:

[flaja]

The accusations against the Duke lacrosse players were baseless. Should they have not hired lawyers?

The accusations against these players were made by someone whose identity was known and who was telling her story to the DA and not to a newspaper. A criminal investigation was inevitable. I don’t see where a criminal investigation of McCain is inevitable based on the NYT story, but McCain must think such an investigation is inevitable since he already has his criminal attorney at work. So what makes McCain think he will be investigated- if he knows that he’s done nothing wrong?

[manu1959]

The accusations against these players were made by someone whose identity was known and who was telling her story to the DA and not to a newspaper. A criminal investigation was inevitable. I don’t see where a criminal investigation of McCain is inevitable based on the NYT story, but McCain must think such an investigation is inevitable since he already has his criminal attorney at work. So what makes McCain think he will be investigated- if he knows that he’s done nothing wrong?

it is called being prepared .....

[flaja]

there would be no evidence only suspicion.....and there would be nothing to fear......

yet if you choose not to defend yourself against the attacks .... that is your choice.....

you imply that defending ones self makes one guilty....absurd....

Why would I need to defend myself against baseless attacks- much less baseless attacks that just about everyone is saying are politically motivated?

[manu1959]

Why would I need to defend myself against baseless attacks- much less baseless attacks that just about everyone is saying are politically motivated?

john kerry tired that.....

[flaja]

I know what you mean. Based on innuendo, the scarlet A is already sown on McCain's lapel, it would seem.


Innuendo and McCain’s past history as an adulterer.

[manu1959]

Innuendo and McCain’s past history as an adulterer.

it would seem you have already decided he is guilty......explains your biased posistion to date....

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, if it were a democrat accused of screwing around, the same article, the same set of words, just change the names, then republicans would be slamming him, just like the Dems are gonna do.

It doesn't really matter at this point whether it's true or not, there is going to be the question (like, "But would they lie about having slept together to get out of trouble?"), and likely his wife's also going to question, especially given his admitted history of sleeping around.

In the end, party doesn't matter, it's a cheap way to take a swipe at someone.

[flaja]

I wonder if flaja knows she/he/it is arguing with lawyers? :laugh2:


Any good lawyer will tell you to act innocent even if you are as guilty as the day is long. The people here are giving the opposite advice: they want McCain to act guilty even though they insist that he’s innocent.

[manu1959]

Any good lawyer will tell you to act innocent even if you are as guilty as the day is long. The people here are giving the opposite advice: they want McCain to act guilty even though they insist that he’s innocent.

who here has said he should act guilty.....hiring a laywer to defend yourself against civil and criminal accusations by a national media outlet is a wise business choice.....

[Said1]

Any good lawyer will tell you to act innocent even if you are as guilty as the day is long. The people here are giving the opposite advice: they want McCain to act guilty even though they insist that he’s innocent.


No they're not.

Moreover, any lawyer worth their fee would tell him to SFU, without consultation. Hiring legal council is in no way an indication of guilt.

PLS describe your legal experience, professionally speaking.

[manu1959]

No they're not.

Moreover, any lawyer worth their fee would tell him to SFU, without consultation. Hiring legal council is in no way an indication of guilt.

PLS describe your legal experience, professionally speaking.

it must be putting their resume together.....

[flaja]

Okay, if it were a democrat accused of screwing around, the same article, the same set of words, just change the names, then republicans would be slamming him, just like the Dems are gonna do.

It doesn't really matter at this point whether it's true or not, there is going to be the question (like, "But would they lie about having slept together to get out of trouble?"), and likely his wife's also going to question, especially given his admitted history of sleeping around.

In the end, party doesn't matter, it's a cheap way to take a swipe at someone.

I don’t remember when story ran, but at some point the NYT did publish a story about a named woman in Arkansas who accused Bill Clinton of raping her while he was Arkansas’ attorney general. To may knowledge Clinton wasn’t investigated. Sadly, the American People no longer care when their politicians are scum. Any charge against any politician, no matter how true, is accepted as being politically motivated.

[flaja]

who here has said he should act guilty.....hiring a laywer to defend yourself against civil and criminal accusations by a national media outlet is a wise business choice.....

If the story is baseless, there would be no reason to defend yourself in the media as McCain has done.

[manu1959]

I don’t remember when story ran, but at some point the NYT did publish a story about a named woman in Arkansas who accused Bill Clinton of raping her while he was Arkansas’ attorney general. To may knowledge Clinton wasn’t investigated. Sadly, the American People no longer care when their politicians are scum. Any charge against any politician, no matter how true, is accepted as being politically motivated.

they interviewed her and wrote the story years prior to his impeachment....guess when they ran the story....

[flaja]

No they're not.

Moreover, any lawyer worth their fee would tell him to SFU, without consultation. Hiring legal council is in no way an indication of guilt.

It is one thing to hire counsel just in case an investigation is launched. But McCain sent his counsel out to do PR in an effort to stave off an investigation. So what is McCain afraid of? What is he worried that an investigation will find?


PLS describe your legal experience, professionally speaking.

Describe yours.

[Yurt]

If the story is baseless, there would be no reason to defend yourself in the media as McCain has done.

you're a liar and fraud. everything you say is a lie.

[Said1]

It is one thing to hire counsel just in case an investigation is launched. But McCain sent his counsel out to do PR in an effort to stave off an investigation. So what is McCain afraid of? What is he worried that an investigation will find?

Comparatively speaking, how is this behavior abnormal?


Describe yours.

I work for one of the most prominent, mulit-practice law firms in the country. Most of my job involves research, legal research. Presently, I'm working with junior council on the Gomery Inquiry. They're part of a bigger team, representing the former Prime Minister. And yourself?

[flaja]

you're a liar and fraud. everything you say is a lie.

How so?

[flaja]

Comparatively speaking, how is this behavior abnormal?

How often did this Bennett(sp?), who was Bill Clinton's criminal defense lawyer, spend an entire day on TV protesting Clinton's innocence immediately after the press reported on information that suggested immoral/illegal activity on Clinton's part? Even if McCain is not totally innocent of adultery and corruption, sending his criminal defense attorney out first thing after the NYT story is a bit of an over-reaction by D.C. standards.


I work for one of the most prominent, mulit-practice law firms in the country. Most of my job involves research, legal research. Presently, I'm working with junior council on the Gomery Inquiry. They're part of a bigger team, representing the former Prime Minister. And yourself?

Prime minister? So you are not an American attorney? What experience have you had with the American legal system?

As for me I am a lifelong observer of politics and a lifelong student of history (with 40 credit hours in university history courses to go with my bachelor’s degree in biology). I think that I have a better handle on the American political situation and its corresponding tradition of corruption and cover up than you do.

[Said1]

How often did this Bennett(sp?), who was Bill Clinton's criminal defense lawyer, spend an entire day on TV protesting Clinton's innocence immediately after the press reported on information that suggested immoral/illegal activity on Clinton's part? Even if McCain is not totally innocent of adultery and corruption, sending his criminal defense attorney out first thing after the NYT story is a bit of an over-reaction by D.C. standards.

Contridict yourself much? :laugh2:


Prime minister? So you are not an American attorney? What experience have you had with the American legal system?

Americans hire lawyers for reasons that are different from the rest of the world? Mmmkay. :laugh2:

Moreover, if you want to discuss specific laws vs legal system as they pertain to this thread, be my guest. What that actually has to do with anything has gone over my head - or I missed it stated earlier in this thread. I'm sure you do have a point though, right? :shrug:


As for me I am a lifelong observer of politics and a lifelong student of history (with 40 credit hours in university history courses to go with my bachelor’s degree in biology). I think that I have a better handle on the American political situation and its corresponding tradition of corruption and cover up than you do.

Sorry, but your defensive arrogance has given you away, again. 40 credit hours in history does not make you an expert in politics or law. However, I think your degree in biology might make you an expert in disecting frogs. Sorry. I think I have a better handle on international politics than you do, dear. :laugh2:

[manu1959]

How often did this Bennett(sp?), who was Bill Clinton's criminal defense lawyer, spend an entire day on TV protesting Clinton's innocence immediately after the press reported on information that suggested immoral/illegal activity on Clinton's part? Even if McCain is not totally innocent of adultery and corruption, sending his criminal defense attorney out first thing after the NYT story is a bit of an over-reaction by D.C. standards.
Prime minister? So you are not an American attorney? What experience have you had with the American legal system?
As for me I am a lifelong observer of politics and a lifelong student of history (with 40 credit hours in university history courses to go with my bachelor’s degree in biology). I think that I have a better handle on the American political situation and its corresponding tradition of corruption and cover up than you do.

that's it....you watch tv and took a history class.....yea that makes you qualified.....

[Yurt]

If the story is baseless, there would be no reason to defend yourself in the media as McCain has done.


you're a liar and fraud. everything you say is a lie.


How so?


do you now see how silly your first statement is?

[flaja]

Contridict yourself much? :laugh2:

How so? Clinton acted innocent and got away with high crimes and misdemeanors. McCain says he’s innocent, but he is acting guilty. McCain had a criminal defense attorney at work within hours of the NYT story. He is acting like a guilty man and this tells me that there may be some substance behind the NYT story. If McCain wasn’t acting like the NYT story is a serious matter, then maybe I wouldn’t think it is a serious matter.


Americans hire lawyers for reasons that are different from the rest of the world? Mmmkay. :laugh2:

We don’t hire criminal defense attorneys to deal with situations that call for a civil lawsuit.


Moreover, if you want to discuss specific laws vs legal system as they pertain to this thread, be my guest. What that actually has to do with anything has gone over my head - or I missed it stated earlier in this thread. I'm sure you do have a point though, right? :shrug:

You are not an American attorney, so what understanding should we expect you to have regarding the American legal system? The fact that you don’t understand the difference between a civil and a criminal attorney shows how little understanding you have.


Sorry, but your defensive arrogance has given you away, again. 40 credit hours in history does not make you an expert in politics or law.

In that I know how political scandals have been dealt with in the past, yes. Now what makes you think I don’t know more about my county than you do?

[hjmick]

I'm just happy he's being accused of having an affair with an adult woman.

[CockySOB]

I'm just happy he's being accused of having an affair with an adult woman.

Better than a dead girl or a live boy, eh?

[manu1959]

We don’t hire criminal defense attorneys to deal with situations that call for a civil lawsuit.



really....tell me what civil lawsuit / charges do expected to be filed against him....

[Said1]

How so? Clinton acted innocent and got away with high crimes and misdemeanors. McCain says he’s innocent, but he is acting guilty. McCain had a criminal defense attorney at work within hours of the NYT story. He is acting like a guilty man and this tells me that there may be some substance behind the NYT story. If McCain wasn’t acting like the NYT story is a serious matter, then maybe I wouldn’t think it is a serious matter.

As I said, contridict yourself much. :clap:




We don’t hire criminal defense attorneys to deal with situations that call for a civil lawsuit.

Mmmkay. :laugh2:




You are not an American attorney, so what understanding should we expect you to have regarding the American legal system?

I'm not an lawyer. Never stated I was. I said I perform legal research. That is, I spend my days pouring over legal text and briefs looking for specific information ie legislation and case related rulings. I also edit and build briefs on bigger cases, such as the one I just mentioned above. This is menial tedious work, but I get the pleasure of name dropping in those instances. :laugh2:


The fact that you don’t understand the difference between a civil and a criminal attorney shows how little understanding you have.

Look honey, the fact that you don't understand why people hire lawyers in the first place clearly shows what little understanding you actually posses. And, more than one REAL American lawyer has tried to explain this to you, with no avail. What's up with that? :laugh2:

Could you also please quote where I have indicated that I can not distinguish between between a civil and criminal lawyer. Thanks.


In that I know how political scandals have been dealt with in the past, yes. Now what makes you think I don’t know more about my county than you do?
Who cares about your interpretation of what you saw unfold on tv? I should put a special value on that? On the other hand, if you saw someone perform a fradulent science experiment on tv, that would be different. :laugh2:

Also, you might want to make note of what I actually said which was "40 credit hours don't make you an expert" or something like that, I'm paraphrasing. I didn't say I knew more about your country. Sheesh. :laugh:

[flaja]

really....tell me what civil lawsuit / charges do expected to be filed against him....

You have documentation that attorneys in America routinely handle both civil and criminal cases?

[flaja]

As I said, contridict yourself much. :clap:

What are you talking about? How have I contradicted myself?


Mmmkay. :laugh2:

You have documentation that Americans routinely have the same lawyers handle both criminal and civil cases? Anyone know how many criminal cases John Edwards has ever handled? Hillary is a lawyer and from I gather a corporate lawyer- contracts and the like; just how many criminal trials has she ever worked on? \


I'm not an lawyer. Never stated I was.

Then why are you questioning my understanding of the American legal system?


Look honey,

Your condescending attitude is uncalled for and you may go to Hell. I am not your “honey” and you will never be fortunately enough for me to want to be.

[Yurt]

You have documentation that attorneys in America routinely handle both civil and criminal cases?

uh, yes. i have worked for at least 3 and know of plenty more. are you american? i mean if you had even a scant understanding of the legal world you would never have asked this question.

so, have figured out why your earlier statement was so silly?

[manu1959]

You have documentation that attorneys in America routinely handle both civil and criminal cases?

my question too hard for you......i mean you do have 40 credits in history .... you should be able to tell me what charges are going to filed against mr mccain and since you believe they will not be criminal.....name the civil charges....

[Yurt]

my question too hard for you......i mean you do have 40 credits in history .... you should be able to tell me what charges are going to filed against mr mccain and since you believe they will not be criminal.....name the civil charges....

look at your post number :coffee:

[manu1959]

look at your post number :coffee:

huh?.....this little girl is an idiot....my dad and his dad did civil and criminal case all the time in their firm....

[Yurt]

huh?.....this little girl is an idiot....my dad and his dad did civil and criminal case all the time in their firm....

it was 6666

[manu1959]

it was 6666

maybe cheesnuts can forgive me.....

[Yurt]

maybe cheesnuts can forgive me.....

where did flo go? i miss her expert posts.

[Said1]

What are you talking about? How have I contradicted myself?

Good grief. You are getting cumbersome. Go back and read. Find the error in your train of thought.




You have documentation that Americans routinely have the same lawyers handle both criminal and civil cases?

Pls quote where I made this claim. Thanks


Anyone know how many criminal cases John Edwards has ever handled? Hillary is a lawyer and from I gather a corporate lawyer- contracts and the like; just how many criminal trials has she ever worked on?

Who said she was a trial lawyer? Who said John Edwards handles criminal cases?




Then why are you questioning my understanding of the American legal system?

Could it be because you understand very little about why someone, in this situation, might hire a lawyer? I don't think there are national differences with respect to this, although you do.

Your condescending attitude is uncalled for and you may go to Hell. I am not your “honey” and you will never be fortunately enough for me to want to be.

Oh yes. I want you to be my honey. I bet you're a real tiger in the sac. :laugh2:

[Said1]

huh?.....this little girl is an idiot....my dad and his dad did civil and criminal case all the time in their firm....

I wonder if flo can say 'Johnny Cochran'and 'OJ'. :laugh2:

[flaja]

uh, yes. i have worked for at least 3 and know of plenty more.

Some number greater than 3 is the best you can document? This out of 1.14 million lawyers in this country? http://www.nysun.com/article/67423

[flaja]

my question too hard for you......i mean you do have 40 credits in history .... you should be able to tell me what charges are going to filed against mr mccain and since you believe they will not be criminal.....name the civil charges....


My understanding is that the FCC is an independent regulatory agency that was established so regulations could be created without regards to politics. So McCain shouldn’t have been interfering with how the FCC does its business. The fact that he may have been sleeping around with a lobbyist whose client is the person on whose behalf McCain interfered with the FCC makes the case that much worse. As for the specific charges that McCain would be subject to, I cannot comment. But neither can you say that what the NYT says McCain has done is perfectly legal. At the very least he likely has violated the Senate’s ethics laws.

[red states rule]

My understanding is that the FCC is an independent regulatory agency that was established so regulations could be created without regards to politics. So McCain shouldn’t have been interfering with how the FCC does its business. The fact that he may have been sleeping around with a lobbyist whose client is the person on whose behalf McCain interfered with the FCC makes the case that much worse. As for the specific charges that McCain would be subject to, I cannot comment. But neither can you say that what the NYT says McCain has done is perfectly legal. At the very least he likely has violated the Senate’s ethics laws.

Not only are you drinking the Kool Aid you are using it for bath water

[flaja]

Not only are you drinking the Kool Aid you are using it for bath water


Huh?

[red states rule]

Huh?

There is no evidencde McCain slept with her, or did nothing wrong, Not one fact has been presented, yet you keep repeating he may have

You are as bad as the DNC Times

[Yurt]

Some number greater than 3 is the best you can document? This out of 1.14 million lawyers in this country? http://www.nysun.com/article/67423

:lol: you asked if there were "any" i gave you a number that i have direct personal knowledge of and yet you complain :poke:. if you had any brains, you would open a phone book and look under attorneys and see how many advertise that they practice in both criminal and civil. the three most popular cross areas are:

criminal/family

criminal/personal injury

you again failed to address my post wherein i showed you the fallacy of your argument that mccain should not defend himself.

[Abbey Marie]

The accusations against these players were made by someone whose identity was known and who was telling her story to the DA and not to a newspaper. A criminal investigation was inevitable. I don’t see where a criminal investigation of McCain is inevitable based on the NYT story, but McCain must think such an investigation is inevitable since he already has his criminal attorney at work. So what makes McCain think he will be investigated- if he knows that he’s done nothing wrong?

How does McCain, or anyone, know what will transpire in the days ahead? The Duke players did not know if the case would proceed, either, so that attempt to distinguish the two situations isn't working for you.

As everyone here has told you, you hire a lawyer prophylactically, regardless of guilt or innocence. Especially if you are a public figure. People hire bodyguards not knowing if they will ever actually be kidnapped or shot at, too. People take contraceptives just in case the egg and the sperm meet up. Babies wear bibs in case they spill food on themselves.

These are not tough concepts.

Here's some free "legal" advice for you, even though you haven't been proven guilty of anything yet. lol. :coffee: When one continues to strenuously defend an illogical opinion, despite all evidence that they are wrong, that person tends to be discredited when they make any future arguments. If I were you, I would admit that there is nothing wrong with McCain hiring an attorney, and move on to another topic.

[flaja]

There is no evidencde McCain slept with her,

What would you accept as evidence?


or did nothing wrong,

Interfering with an independent regulatory agency for the benefit of a lobbyist’s client isn’t doing something wrong?


Not one fact has been presented, yet you keep repeating he may have

It’s usually wise to assume the worst in any politician.

[flaja]

:lol: you asked if there were "any" i gave you a number that i have direct personal knowledge of and yet you complain

Because the few lawyers that you are acquainted with are nothing compared to the 1.14 million lawyers we have in this country. I could just as easily reply by saying that none of the dozens of lawyers whom I see advertising on TV in any given day ever advertise to get criminal cases, thus the logical conclusion is that none of these lawyers specialize in criminal cases.

[Said1]

Because the few lawyers that you are acquainted with are nothing compared to the 1.14 million lawyers we have in this country. I could just as easily reply by saying that none of the dozens of lawyers whom I see advertising on TV in any given day ever advertise to get criminal cases, thus the logical conclusion is that none of these lawyers specialize in criminal cases.

:lol:

[flaja]

How does McCain, or anyone, know what will transpire in the days ahead? The Duke players did not know if the case would proceed, either, so that attempt to distinguish the two situations isn't working for you.

As I said before the situation with the Duke players is that the woman who alleged she was raped was working with the DA so an investigation was already in progress. To my knowledge no one working for the NYT is working with the FBI, Attorney General or anyone else that has the power to investigate McCain.


As everyone here has told you, you hire a lawyer prophylactically, regardless of guilt or innocence. Especially if you are a public figure.

Then you are all crazy for expecting so little from the people you put in office.
And even if every public figure keeps a criminal defense attorney on retainer, they don’t trot that attorney before the TV news every time there is a hint of scandal in the air.

[Yurt]

Because the few lawyers that you are acquainted with are nothing compared to the 1.14 million lawyers we have in this country. I could just as easily reply by saying that none of the dozens of lawyers whom I see advertising on TV in any given day ever advertise to get criminal cases, thus the logical conclusion is that none of these lawyers specialize in criminal cases.


Because the few lawyers that you are acquainted with are nothing compared to the 1.14 million lawyers we have in this country. I could just as easily reply by saying that none of the dozens of lawyers whom I see advertising on TV in any given day ever advertise to get criminal cases, thus the logical conclusion is that none of these lawyers specialize in criminal cases.

holy crap, you crack me up.

1. i am a lawyer and know very well the lawyer culture and what lawyers practice and don't practice. i seriously can't believe you are even arguing with me about this.

2. i told you to open up the yellow pages. you ignored this. even you don't have access to the yellow pages, go to Yahoo's yellow pages, pick any city, and click law firms. then see "all services" here, since i know you will ignore this again

http://yp.yahoo.com/ypResults.py?stp=y&stx=8305137&city=San+Francisco&state=CA&uzip=94103&msa=7360&slt=37.7742&sln=-122.417068&cs=4

some of them do both civil and criminal, including appeals. further, haven't you ever heard of a "general practitioner?"

it is beyond comprehension why you stick to your point.

[JohnDoe]

holy crap, you crack me up.

1. i am a lawyer and know very well the lawyer culture and what lawyers practice and don't practice. i seriously can't believe you are even arguing with me about this.

2. i told you to open up the yellow pages. you ignored this. even you don't have access to the yellow pages, go to Yahoo's yellow pages, pick any city, and click law firms. then see "all services" here, since i know you will ignore this again

http://yp.yahoo.com/ypResults.py?stp=y&stx=8305137&city=San+Francisco&state=CA&uzip=94103&msa=7360&slt=37.7742&sln=-122.417068&cs=4

some of them do both civil and criminal, including appeals. further, haven't you ever heard of a "general practitioner?"

it is beyond comprehension why you stick to your point.

But is McCain's lawyer a "General Practitioner " yurt or is he a Criminal Defense Lawyer, and a well known one at that? PS. I have not gone through and read the entire thread...just heard some things on the 24/7 about it....that he was a pretty famous lawyer in "congress's arena"....but i do not know if they said he specialized in Criminal Defense or Civil matters?

Either way, I think McCain justly retained a lawyer.... the lies need to be confronted immediately, he can't let anything fester or he is minced meat. If the stuff turns out to be true and he gave tit for tat to the firm of the lobbyist, then let there be light shed on such asap, or be done with it.

I hate inuendo stuff!!! The media needs to put up or shut up, on all this speculation and gossip!

jd

[Yurt]

But is McCain's lawyer a "General Practitioner " yurt or is he a Criminal Defense Lawyer, and a well known one at that? PS. I have not gone through and read the entire thread...just heard some things on the 24/7 about it....that he was a pretty famous lawyer in "congress's arena"....but i do not know if they said he specialized in Criminal Defense or Civil matters?

Either way, I think McCain justly retained a lawyer.... the lies need to be confronted immediately, he can't let anything fester or he is minced meat. If the stuff turns out to be true and he gave tit for tat to the firm of the lobbyist, then let there be light shed on such asap, or be done with it.

I hate inuendo stuff!!! The media needs to put up or shut up, on all this speculation and gossip!

jd

her claim is that NO lawyer practices both civil and criminal and that my references are meritless as the population of lawyers in this country far exceeds the sample i gave her. that is why i gave her san francisco's yellow pages.