Thursday, January 03, 2008

Did You Hear?

Colby Natale has decided that even though the investigation against Conrad Burns is dismissed that he feels: "it is also quite possible that he is guilty but there is insufficient evidence to prove it. That is the bitch about these things; you never can know for sure." He then goes on to close with:
While I am willing to admit I could be wrong about him, I flat out refuse to apologize for what I believe, and I don’t think any of us should (short of perhaps anyone who declared that an indictment was guaranteed).

So, in the spirit of guilty until proven innocent, let's play around with this one a little bit, shall we? For instance, did you know that Sen. Baucus is a founding member of NAMBLA? Now, it might not be true, but until he proves that he is not, I am just going to believe what I want to.
Or how about Gov. Schweizer? I heard someone say that he has been evading taxes even though he is rich, by using the same accountant who came up with the amount of money to be given back to taxpayers from the surplus. I have also heard from some people who should know, that this accountant is really in the Mafia, and is blackmailing the governor, and that he is using state funds to pay the blackmail.
Might not be true, but you never know until he disproves it.

Right, Colby?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well technically, it's not true until it's reprinted 1000 times in the Montana media. That's the best way to invent political truth.

So the trick is to send some anonymous emails to the Gazette Editorial Board. Just claim you're "close to the issue" or something.

Mark T said...

Your point is painfully obvious. What you are missing are the reams of circumstantial evidence against Burns, including Abramoff's own words. Does it all mean nothing? Yes, according to you. "Investigation stopped" means "found innocent".

Nonsense!

Steve said...

Sorry Mark, but if you have ever watched how the Feds investigate, you know they don't stop until they have started at one end of your alimentary canal and ended at the other. They don't give up easily.
But if you are willing to convict on "circumstantial evidence" which is really nothing more than self-serving rumor mongering, I hope that you never sit on a jury.
And it is true that an investigation which is ended is a verdict of innocent. Since it only takes probable cause to indict, and that is such a low standard, that every ham sandwich is a potential defendant in this country.

Mark T said...

Sorry, pal - most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. You seldom have the luxury of a confession or smoking gun. It doesn't mean nothing.

Stopping the investigation means they probably didn't have enough to get a conviction or plea bargain. Such is life.

epbunddz said...

Well, Mark, you better hope that’s not true about circumstantial evidence, when you go up for your involuntary commitment hearing.

Mark T said...

This place has the trappings of an intelligent blog with a smart guy running it - I don't mind being pounded that way. Well, I mind, but that's how it works.

But these Coobsians who chime in with personal insults are a bit distracting.