I'm sure that was probably used somewhere on the web already -- his name just lends himself to it, doesn't it?
Well the first part of the ax has fallen -- in the Democrats rush to get this over with before the Republicans get into poweer -- and he was found guilty in 11/13 counts of ethic violations ... one that they were split on 4/4 was whether his actions caused a poor image of the Congress.
But here's what is making me post today --
He is claiming that he is claiming that he wasn't given a 'fair' hearing
why is he claiming this?
because his NY lawyers backed out of the case earlier in the year (they must have either learned the truth or found he couldn't pay the bill, really irrelevant for my posting) ... and he didn't find another law firm to represent him.
So the day of the hearing - he showed up, told the panel that he didn't have a lawyer, and - from what I've heard - left ... did not ask for an extension ... did not ask for a delay ... just left.
so, like any other court in America - well hearing in America, they proceeded on.
You have a court date -- this wasn't a rush the date has been set for a long time -- you are supposed to show up with counsel. If you can not, then you are expected to file the motion before the date of the trial ... not walk into the proceeding and go 'oops'.
How many times has Judge Judy bawled out a person because they showed up without the evidence they were going to need to prove their case?? or Judge Millian? or Judge Alex? or any of the other dozens of court programs out there?
He had a 'fair hearing' .... he simply does not like the outcome.
But I suspect that he will be 'punished' about as harshly as Clinton was when he was found guilty of impeding an investigation, wrongful use of power, lieing to a Grand Jury, etc.
he will get a slap on the wrist.
the last thing the Dems want is another one of their people getting into deep trouble
Buttons, Buttons, We've Got Buttons!
The Current State of the US Stock Market
Visit The Greenhouse
Click to join MonthlyDishcloths