Comments on: Rudy Fiddled And Diddled On Gotham City’s Dime? http://election2008.teambio.org/2007/11/28/rudy-fiddled-and-diddled-on-gotham-citys-dime/ Just another WordPress weblog Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:17:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: me http://election2008.teambio.org/2007/11/28/rudy-fiddled-and-diddled-on-gotham-citys-dime/#comment-947 me Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:14:29 +0000 http://election2008.teambio.org/2007/11/28/rudy-fiddled-and-diddled-on-gotham-citys-dime/#comment-947 Paul, Depends on to whom one speaks. :^) Paul,

Depends on to whom one speaks. :^)

]]> By: Paul Watson http://election2008.teambio.org/2007/11/28/rudy-fiddled-and-diddled-on-gotham-citys-dime/#comment-946 Paul Watson Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:11:40 +0000 http://election2008.teambio.org/2007/11/28/rudy-fiddled-and-diddled-on-gotham-citys-dime/#comment-946 But, he's a Republican politician. Wasn't the presumption of innocence suspended from them in 2002 or something? But, he’s a Republican politician. Wasn’t the presumption of innocence suspended from them in 2002 or something?

]]> By: me http://election2008.teambio.org/2007/11/28/rudy-fiddled-and-diddled-on-gotham-citys-dime/#comment-945 me Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:36:48 +0000 http://election2008.teambio.org/2007/11/28/rudy-fiddled-and-diddled-on-gotham-citys-dime/#comment-945 Jersey, Yes. You are correct. If Giuliani is guilty of this, it IS a hell of a lot worse than what Clinton did. Absolutely. Not trying to argue otherwise. All I'm saying is, for now, it's still an IF and therefore there is no comparison to what Clinton did...because there is no IF about what Clinton did. He DID lie under oath, rare or not. What I don't get is that, after all the conversations we've had here about the presumption of innocence that you still don't get what I'm saying. What part of "I agree that this is suspicious and merits a good examination and if the examination doesn’t come up with a clear, transparently true explanation, then Rudy’s toast" don't you understand? Jersey,

Yes. You are correct. If Giuliani is guilty of this, it IS a hell of a lot worse than what Clinton did. Absolutely. Not trying to argue otherwise.

All I’m saying is, for now, it’s still an IF and therefore there is no comparison to what Clinton did…because there is no IF about what Clinton did. He DID lie under oath, rare or not.

What I don’t get is that, after all the conversations we’ve had here about the presumption of innocence that you still don’t get what I’m saying. What part of “I agree that this is suspicious and merits a good examination and if the examination doesn’t come up with a clear, transparently true explanation, then Rudy’s toast” don’t you understand?

]]> By: Jersey McJones http://election2008.teambio.org/2007/11/28/rudy-fiddled-and-diddled-on-gotham-citys-dime/#comment-944 Jersey McJones Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:41:01 +0000 http://election2008.teambio.org/2007/11/28/rudy-fiddled-and-diddled-on-gotham-citys-dime/#comment-944 Craig, in law, if Giuliani is guilty of this, it's a HELLUVA lot worse than what Clinton did. It is EXTREMELY rare that a defendant is convited of perjury for lying about a matter unrelated to the suit in a deposition. Extremey rare. It is, however, quite routine that pols are convicted of misappropriation for this kind of thing. There is no comparison here. JMJ Craig, in law, if Giuliani is guilty of this, it’s a HELLUVA lot worse than what Clinton did. It is EXTREMELY rare that a defendant is convited of perjury for lying about a matter unrelated to the suit in a deposition. Extremey rare. It is, however, quite routine that pols are convicted of misappropriation for this kind of thing. There is no comparison here.

JMJ

]]> By: Paul Watson http://election2008.teambio.org/2007/11/28/rudy-fiddled-and-diddled-on-gotham-citys-dime/#comment-943 Paul Watson Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:21:36 +0000 http://election2008.teambio.org/2007/11/28/rudy-fiddled-and-diddled-on-gotham-citys-dime/#comment-943 Lisa, And what does that have to do with Rudy billing departments that were not responsible for it for his security detail during his trips to the Hamptons? If it was a legitimate expense, why didn't he just submit it to the appropriate department? Craig's right on this. Rudy's affair is only connected in the most loose way to this, in that it was the reason for the trip, not the reason for the impropriety (assuming there was any). So by concentrating on that aspect, Daniel's done the story a disservice. This is a financial scandal (if scandal it be) not a sexual one. So please keep the comparisons to Democratic financial scandals. I doubt that will limit your options all that much. Lisa,
And what does that have to do with Rudy billing departments that were not responsible for it for his security detail during his trips to the Hamptons? If it was a legitimate expense, why didn’t he just submit it to the appropriate department?
Craig’s right on this. Rudy’s affair is only connected in the most loose way to this, in that it was the reason for the trip, not the reason for the impropriety (assuming there was any). So by concentrating on that aspect, Daniel’s done the story a disservice. This is a financial scandal (if scandal it be) not a sexual one.
So please keep the comparisons to Democratic financial scandals. I doubt that will limit your options all that much.

]]>