Anyone remember Bob Mcdonell?

Yes, like Fox fair and balanced was going to have such a thorough reporting of this. What a joke.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

Are they even reporting it?

 

Gov. Ultrasound? Oh yeah...I remember that guy.

 

I would suggest watching what you type.

First yeah, only the far right take him seriously - like only the far left take Rachel Maddow seriously. Spot on, good sir!
Second - no, he's not on FOX.

you mean there's a caveat that disproves a general and inspecific statement?

 

Coulter isn't on FOX anymore? Didn't know that. I guess they got bored with him too.

 

Do you even know what a caveat is?

 

Are they even reporting it?[/QUOTE]

If I had to guess, I'd say they are still on the issue.

 

First, no, she's not - but she appears on FOX, CNN, and MSNBC. As irrelevant as that is.

And, you're making a guy joke about Ann Coulter when the comparison is with Rachel Maddow?

You just made funny funnier.

 

I thought he was a FOX staple. Apparently, he is making the rounds though. I think he's on CNN tonight. Rachael? She's up front about who she is. The FOX dude, isn't.

 

Yeah, cause one looks like a dude and the other doesn't - oh wait, that's more of your hyper-partisan bs.

 

Coulter is a dude. Common knowledge. (and hideous, to boot). Maddow doesn't pretend to be something she's not. The FOX dude, certainly does. Did you have any other point here?

 

Bob McDonnell - like George Allen, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, David Vitter, and Chris Christie - was once the next Republican President.

No one remembers any of them.

 

I've always thought of that section of US 460 that runs from Virginia Beach (Robertson's Regent's University) through Lynchburg (Liberty)as the Highway to Purgatory!!!!!

 

I'm still trying to recover from yesterday. Cut me some slack.

 

It all depends on what photo you are looking at; https://www.google.com/search?q=rac...chel-maddows-yearbook-p_n_640093.html;430;601

 

So you don't understand any of the guy jokes made about them... w/e

 

How about the Washington Post?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...d3aeac-82fe-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html

...Legal experts say the case hinges on whether prosecutors can show that McDonnell agreed provide specific favors in exchange for the gifts, a tough task given the fine line between what is illegal versus what is unseemly. And prosecutors will need to prove the McDonnells abused their positions and conspired together to sell their influence.
“The indictment, as I read it, points to a lot of smoke, but I don’t see any fire,” said Peter White, a defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor in Virginia.

If the gifts-for-favors theory doesn’t stick, prosecutors can still secure convictions if they prove the McDonnells tried to hide the loans and their relationship and dealings with Jonnie Williams, the former head of Star Scientific......

...One problem for prosecutors may be showing McDonnell took official actions to help the company. Courts have generally understood this as introducing legislation or ensuring a person or company is awarded a contract, White said. Arranging a meeting, or hosting an event, don’t fall into the same category, he said.....
_______________________________
Pretty much what I have maintained--it is the attempted coverup that is going to cause them their problems

 

Think there's any chance of a conviction, considering the paucity of evidence?

 

I think his wife will be convicted of at least trying to obstruct justice by manufacturing evidence. IIRC, she created a document to make it appear that there was an agreement about returning some clothes before the clothes were acquired.

 

I'm going to throw this out there on a bet; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ion-politician-including-President-Obama.html If this is what he is saying now, I'm going to say he's guilty. You don't step up to the podium and announce "if I am guilty" then take a cheap shot at the president, who has not been found accepting gifts and promoting them, it just portrays a guilt complex straight out of the box. It looks like he's already showing his cards by saying that. That's my take on him.

 

I think the WaPo piece I posted made comparisons to Tim Kaine having done similar things. I believe that the Justice Department is trying to backdoor him as a test case to send a message to all politicians even though the SCOTUS threw out part of the federal law they wish they still had. I don't see how any conviction can make it to the SCOTUS and survive based on the evidence out there. Unless they have him saying "Give me a ride in your plane and I will get your product covered by medicaid" or something similar, then I don't see how this survives. Hell even at the federal level, the Clintons were whores for anybody who threw them cash at one of Hillary's coffees and the like. I have seen nothing to think this is any different than Bill Clinton flying around on a private jet while his wife is secretary of state, Obama getting free rounds of golf at some swanky club, or any host of similar conduct.

 

There's a big, big difference. If it hasn't been shown that the Clintons or Obama have used gifts or cash to promote products, that is the big difference. You, like many others, feed on what you wish, rather than what is actually so. That's your big mistake.

 

Yea, 14 counts! That would certainly describe the paucity of evidence.

 

There were counts against George Zimmermann, but zero evidence.

 

There is no difference. There is no proof so far as I can tell that this was a quid pro quo. Where are the indictments against the other parties for bribing public officials if that be the case?