| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| What ethics trial for Barbara Waters? |
| 2010-11-20 |
| How convenient. Remember this two years from now, will you? |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #10 My guess is that unlike Rangel, she showed her real snarl and teeth and scared the committee Chollie is your garden-variety, genial corrupt Northeastern politician, not all that far to the left and not many political allies. "Kerosene Maxine", on the other hand, is a full blown nasty socialist with plenty of political firepower and support from the media. It'll be up to the 112th Congress, which convenes in January, and a new ethics committee. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-11-20 13:57 |
| #9 Err, Maxine Waters? Err, yes. I guess yesterday's "Good Morning" pic is still messing with me. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-11-20 12:18 |
| #8 My guess is that unlike Rangel, she showed her real snarl and teeth and scared the committee enough that Dem House Leadership decided to fold, send this back to the committe on some grounds, and let the Repub House leadership be seen as prosecuting her, with all the race-baiting charges she will throw. If there are real criminal charges, and Holder's DOJ is involved, look for the very long stall...... |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2010-11-20 12:11 |
| #7 Comments, in the Hill, on the article are to the point. One wonders how big a clue bat the pols need? Does it take Madam Defarge and a mob? |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2010-11-20 11:16 |
| #6 combining Barbara Walters and Maxine Waters? "If you could be a twee, what kind of twee would it be, cracker?" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-11-20 11:11 |
| #5 I dunno, DepotGuy. If Holder is leading the prosecution, I doubt the prosecution will lead anywhere useful, just like the Black Panthers investigation did. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2010-11-20 11:00 |
| #4 "As a result, the adjudicatory subcommittee no longer has jurisdiction over this matter and the adjudicatory hearing previously scheduled for November 29, 2010 will not be held." Sooo Maxine...who do you suppose now has "jurisdiction over this matter"? I wouldn't be so smug. They just might be talking about the DoJ. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2010-11-20 10:48 |
| #3 I read (@ AOSHQ) that there was "new information" which could mean additional charges |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-11-20 09:58 |
| #2 Can't it be both? |
| Posted by: Raj 2010-11-20 09:31 |
| #1 Err, Maxine Waters? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2010-11-20 07:13 |