General discussion

Ethics? What are they?

Republicans in hot seat for donations to DeLay.
(Chronicle login:; pw = speakeasy)

Nothing like appointing two folks who've given to a likely investigatee's legal defense fund to the panel that will review the charges -- after removing the scrupulously neutral chairman in favor of a partisan hack. Hastert should be investigated himself (on the basis of the changes in the panel makeup), but that'll clearly never happen with this bunch of "ethical watchdogs" on the hunt!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Discussion is locked

Reply to: Ethics? What are they?
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Ethics? What are they?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
They don't see any problem

Of course, they've had their heads in the sand for years and the view is not very good from down there.



- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) article allso says he wasnt indited:)
- Collapse -
... YET!

Several of the companies involved are turning state's evidence Mark -- his days in power are numbered.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Your prognostication abilities reflect ...

your hopes and dreams but not much in the way of reality Dave. That is likely why they have been off the mark and wrong so very often.

- Collapse -
I am laughing for several reasons...

first of which is that it is not surprising that you have to ask--situaional is not the norm.

Second because the "scrupulously neutral chairman" wans't any such thing.

And third because the ethics chairman was deemed not suitable for the task for other reasons also in the opinion of the majority party and like it or lump it that is what counts and determines chairmanships.

Want to expound of ethics and Jeffords in the same breath as you tried to in the past regarding another chairmanship?

- Collapse -
You don't actually expect them to have ethics, do you

Dave? The boys who gave you Watergate, and the Iran Contra scandal and the never ending, ever expanding, focus always changing Whitewater Inquiry, and the stolen 2000 election and the entire George W(itless) Bush Presidency? Please tell me this post is just an ironic look in order to highlight their hypocrisy.

Rob Boyter

CNET Forums

Forum Info