Hastert linked to Abramoff scandal.
John Laesch, the new Mike Flanagan? Discuss.
Call It A Comeback
Hastert linked to Abramoff scandal.
John Laesch, the new Mike Flanagan? Discuss.
Oh, come on, Larry. You?re better than that! Are you really going to post that story without also linking to, or at least even mentioning the two DOJ statements unequivocally saying that any claims of Hastert being under investigation or ?in the mix? of any investigation are absolutely untrue?
I must say, I just lost a lot of respect for you.
Ummmm…it’s been up for five minutes. Perhaps more than a snarky comment was going to be posted later…
Fair enough. But, while all bloggers appreciate such a Drudge-like zeal to offer fresh, breaking information, we should all be a little more careful not to ?shoot and ask questions later.?
In this case – due respect – if you had time to post a snarky comment, then you should have had time for even a few minutes of surfing around the story. Maybe then you would have found these, the ABC News ?Blotter? stories (located right above the story you did link) containing the DOJ?s statements:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/second_doj_stat.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/doj_statement.html
Or, you may have decided to instead think to this, the ABC News story that reasserts the veracity of the story you did post, but at least recognizes that the DOJ disputes it (Again, it was two links above the story you linked on ?The Blotter?):
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/abc_news_update.html#comments
Personally, I don?t know how ABC News can continue to stand by a story based on anonymous leaks (hey, I thought leaks were bad, bad, bad!!) in the face of two clear, unambiguous official statements by the DOJ to the contrary. It?s not like the DOJ is just saying ?no comment at this time.? They are saying ?it?s not true, period.? And they are saying this in defense of a guy who just slapped them around in the national press, accusing them of violating the constitution.
But, if ABC stands by them, and you want to offer it as a discussion topic, please, please, please: at least recognize in your main post that the story has been officially rebuked by the DOJ.
I see that you now have, so I thank you…..I’ll continue my commenting on this story on the more recent posts.
It was my plan, I just wanted to hit Jefferson and then wrap the larger issue into a point that is a bit of a hobby horse for me.
I just find it interesting that the Justice Dept. departed from its standard, lofty “we don’t comment on the status of investigations” blowoff to bail out Hastert.
There are different rules for the powerful. As depressing as it is unsurprising.
I’m not holding my breath on this one. Who knows what the hell to believe.
Supposing Hastert does have a Rosty-meltdown part deux, Laesch’s ability to retain the seat is rosier than the dire situation Flanagan faced in a super-Democratic Chicago based district. Regardless, IL-14 is Republican enough that he’d be on the ropes immediately. The exurbs of the 14th are only continuing to beef up the seat despite the otherwise laughably pathetic Illinois Republicans.
Actually, it?s not ?interesting? at all.
That ?standard? is an implicit confirmation that an investigation is going on. And so, as far as I know, it?s only used when that is, indeed, the case?..which it apparently is NOT in regards to Hastert.