Uh-oh is right
Things are heating up, in a big way:
The U.S. Attorney in New Jersey has convened a grand jury to investigate
the involvement of Governor Chris Christie¹s office in the George
Washington Bridge scandal, ABC News has learned. [...]
The convening of the grand jury is evidence that the U.S. Attorney¹s
investigation has progressed beyond an inquiry and moved to the criminal
phase.
The grand jury, which will meet for up to the next 18 months, has the
power to indict, subpoena and interview witnesses without their
attorney's present.
This marks for the first time confirmation that what started out as a
preliminary inquiry into the governor¹s office has now become a criminal
investigation into the activities that led to gridlock traffic across
the bridge from Manhattan in Fort Lee.
Today, grand jurors heard testimony from Christie press secretary Mike
Drewniak, a key figure in the Bridgegate scandal‹though Drewniak,
through his attorney, insists he's not a target of this newly heightened
investigation. As Jeff Smith has pointed out, the biggest threat
Christie faces is not political (despite what the Joe Scarboroughs of
the world might think) but legal. And that legal threat just became a
whole lot more serious.

trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, April 7, 2014 12:10:46 AM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,


and people still have the right to take the fifth...of course one
would

assume that after the conservatives finish gutting voting rights,
they

will work to gut the fifth

Sure they do. Anytime they believe they've committed a crime.
A legitimate, honest govt employee who has done nothing wrong
has a duty to testify before Congress and would do so. You really
are a total partisan hack, with zero credibility.

So why aren't Christie's people testifying then????

In article ,
trader_4 wrote:


I know perfectly well what the fifth is for. And it's not so that
govt workers who haven't done anything criminal can avoid testifying
before Congress. Idiot.

apparently not. you think you know better than the founding fathers who
thought it so important that they added it to the original constitution.


but let's play hypothetical: it's 20 years ago and you are gay but don't
want to be outed. you are put on the stand for something totally
unrelated but are asked while under oath "are you a homosexual?" do you
answer or do you take the fifth? OR you are having an affair with your
bosses wife, are put on the stand for something totally unrelated but
are asked while under oath "are you having an affair with your bosses
wife?" do you answer or take the fifth?

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 11:17:19 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

On Monday, April 7, 2014 12:10:46 AM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

In article ,





and people still have the right to take the fifth...of course one

would



assume that after the conservatives finish gutting voting rights,

they



will work to gut the fifth



Sure they do. Anytime they believe they've committed a crime.

A legitimate, honest govt employee who has done nothing wrong

has a duty to testify before Congress and would do so. You really

are a total partisan hack, with zero credibility.



So why aren't Christie's people testifying then????


Because those people involved with the bridge lane closings almost
certainly did something criminal, they know it, and don't want to
incriminate themselves.

Now you tell us why Lois Lerner won't testify. See how that works?

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

but let's play hypothetical: it's 20 years ago and you are gay but don't
want to be outed. you are put on the stand for something totally
unrelated but are asked while under oath "are you a homosexual?" do you
answer or do you take the fifth? OR you are having an affair with your
bosses wife, are put on the stand for something totally unrelated but
are asked while under oath "are you having an affair with your bosses
wife?" do you answer or take the fifth?

If there are still laws on the books with jail time for adultery or
sodomy (and the truly great attorney is one who get sodomy pled down to
following too close) yeah. Otherwise, you ask about the revelance hoping
your attorney and/or the judge pick up on it.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:24:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

but let's play hypothetical: it's 20 years ago and you are gay but don't
want to be outed. you are put on the stand for something totally
unrelated but are asked while under oath "are you a homosexual?" do you
answer or do you take the fifth? OR you are having an affair with your
bosses wife, are put on the stand for something totally unrelated but
are asked while under oath "are you having an affair with your bosses
wife?" do you answer or take the fifth?

If there are still laws on the books with jail time for adultery or
sodomy (and the truly great attorney is one who get sodomy pled down to
following too close) yeah. Otherwise, you ask about the revelance hoping
your attorney and/or the judge pick up on it.

If the question is not relevant to facts in the case, the attorney
should object to the line of questioning.

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:41:58 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:



Oren, this is another classic attempt by a lib to deflect.

Just slumming.
Right, deflect. Threat is titled Christie and Bridegate.
You keep talking about Lerner.
Deflection indeed. Start a thread about Lerner if that's your
interest.
BTW, **** you.

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:35:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 4:13:05 PM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:41:58 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

wrote:


Oren, this is another classic attempt by a lib to deflect.



Just slumming.

Right, deflect. Threat is titled Christie and Bridegate.

You keep talking about Lerner.

Deflection indeed. Start a thread about Lerner if that's your

interest.

BTW, **** you.


(endless deflection unrelated to thread title snipped)
Yeah. Endless deflection. What a motor mouth.

BTW, I'm sure your typical vulgarity does a lot to win arguments
and impress people. The libs should be proud they have you as one
of their own.

WTF? Do you think anyone intelligent would talk to YOU about this?
And you think this is an argument? Impress people?
That's why a simple **** you does the trick.
Okay. My slumming quota is used up.
Just a final **** you.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 15:13:05 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Deflection indeed. Start a thread about Lerner if that's your
interest.
BTW, **** you.

Attempt at deflection noted.

Are you interested in ****ing Trader?

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:26:10 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

That's why a simple **** you does the trick.
Okay. My slumming quota is used up.
Just a final **** you.

Just to be clear. I think what I hear you saying is that Trader will
not let you stick your tongue in his mouth.
--
Liberals are like Chameleons. They keep changing colors. -- © Oren

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 11:22:53 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
On 4/8/2014 2:13 PM, Vic Smith wrote:



BTW, **** you.





The political crap some people insist on posting here (including this

thread) makes this the equivalent of a hostile workplace. I have seen

groups that are substantially destroyed by this crap. People who insist

on posting political crap really aren't smart enough to find an

appropriate place to post it? (This is not aimed at Vic.)

I see, so you find political posts that are clearly marked off topic
more offensive than his gross, vulgar obscenities that he regularly
hurls for no reason? Interesting.

On 4/8/2014 2:13 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

BTW, **** you.


The political crap some people insist on posting here (including this
thread) makes this the equivalent of a hostile workplace. I have seen
groups that are substantially destroyed by this crap. People who insist
on posting political crap really aren't smart enough to find an
appropriate place to post it? (This is not aimed at Vic.)

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:40:06 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
On 4/9/2014 9:49 AM, trader_4 wrote:

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 11:22:53 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:

On 4/8/2014 2:13 PM, Vic Smith wrote:



BTW, **** you.



The political crap some people insist on posting here (including this

thread) makes this the equivalent of a hostile workplace. I have seen

groups that are substantially destroyed by this crap. People who insist

on posting political crap really aren't smart enough to find an

appropriate place to post it? (This is not aimed at Vic.)



I see, so you find political posts that are clearly marked off topic

more offensive than his gross, vulgar obscenities that he regularly

hurls for no reason? Interesting.





I don't remember "regularly hurls". I remember related to political.

So, because it's an off topic political thread, that gives him
the right to regularly hurl obscenities? And you specifically
object to the OT posts, while explicitly exempting Vic's vile behavior?
If anything, it's that kind of behavior that destroys groups more
so than OT posts.




Political makes this a hostile environment.



Marked OT it is still hostile. Why can't you all find an appropriate forum?


You all? Good grief. You've posted to these OT political threads too.



And on topic threads have a habit of migrating to political.

Sometimes, yes. But it's mostly a few posters who regularly
*start* OT political posts. I agree, they shouldn't be doing that.
But I find gross obscenities in response, for no reason, to be
equally or more offensive.

On 4/9/2014 9:49 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 11:22:53 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
On 4/8/2014 2:13 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

BTW, **** you.

The political crap some people insist on posting here (including this
thread) makes this the equivalent of a hostile workplace. I have seen
groups that are substantially destroyed by this crap. People who insist
on posting political crap really aren't smart enough to find an
appropriate place to post it? (This is not aimed at Vic.)

I see, so you find political posts that are clearly marked off topic
more offensive than his gross, vulgar obscenities that he regularly
hurls for no reason? Interesting.


I don't remember "regularly hurls". I remember related to political.
Political makes this a hostile environment.

Marked OT it is still hostile. Why can't you all find an appropriate forum?

And on topic threads have a habit of migrating to political.

bud-- writes:

On 4/10/2014 10:49 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:40:06 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:

Marked OT it is still hostile. Why can't you all find an appropriate forum?

You all? Good grief. You've posted to these OT political threads too.

I think in all cases it started as a non-political thread, and in any
case I think I always made a very limited comment which was dragged
into the alternate reality.

This is the land of idiots unlimited.
Who would have guessed that the group of people interested in fixing
things would have so many people willing to break something.

Anyway, after all these years, it's clear there's no amount
of reasoning that works. Exercise your kill file.

--
Dan Espen

On 4/10/2014 10:49 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:40:06 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:

Marked OT it is still hostile. Why can't you all find an appropriate forum?


You all? Good grief. You've posted to these OT political threads too.

I think in all cases it started as a non-political thread, and in any
case I think I always made a very limited comment which was dragged into
the alternate reality.

The most recent started as an on-topic thread where I asking for a cite
for what turned out to be an alternate reality line from Tekkie. You
gave a cite that did not justify the line then, as you often do, you
dumped a whole lot more alternate reality crap.

But I find gross obscenities in response, for no reason, to be
equally or more offensive.


That is what you can expect in a hostile environment.

Why can't you all find an appropriate forum?

And just ignore Malcolm if he is to stupid to find an appropriate forum.

So I guess the answer is - no, you are not smart enough to find an
appropriate forum.

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 2:26:21 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
So I guess the answer is - no, you are not smart enough to find an

appropriate forum.

I'm smart enough to not come in here bitching about politcal threads
when I've participated in them, like you did. And unlike you, I'm at least
more balanced. You're moaning about how political threads can destroy
newsgroups while giving a free pass and actuall specifically excluding Vic, who
is the only one who hurled vile obscenities in this thread, for no
reason. That doesn't destroy newsgroups? But I guess since he agrees
with a lot of your views, he gets a pass.
I get criticism. Nice how that works. When I pointed out that I find
it odd that you'd complain about OT threads while explicitly giving a
pass to a guy hurling obscenities, all you had to do was say something
like "That's bad too". You still won't call him out for doing it.
Typical lib. Guess I should just start hurling the F bomb too.