Hypothetical Question
January 3rd, 2008 | by Craig |The situation(s): You’re a sinestra blogger(s) who had it “on good authority” that an indictment on charges of bribery and corruption was due any day for a Senator who has now been fully exonerated; or a reporter who carried water on these charges without bothering to do any real research; or a campaign that ran on the premise of said corruption.
Do you:
a.) Man up and apologize
b.) Say nothing and pretend it never happened
c.) Spin like crazy about a phony exoneration
If I were a hypothetical betting man, I’d probably take odds on b.), with a side bet on c.). I’d take option a.) only if I woke up to find airborne swine.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
24 Responses to “Hypothetical Question”
By Jim Lang on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
So the Bush Justice Department stopped an investigation in which they never even questioned Burns… but did the investigation ever actually start?
By JP on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
If the point was a sham investigation by the Bush administration, don’t you think they would have concluded it and exonerated Conrad before the election? Bush lost the Senate over this.
Could be, just perhaps, that maybe Conrad was innocent, and wasn’t interviewed because there was no cause and no need?
Clearly, the investigation continues, only Burns is no longer part of it.
By Dave Budge on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
Jay Stevens has chosen a form of C - but avoids the issue almost entirely about the “on good authority” crap. I guess it’s OK to spread baseless roomers if its for the common good.
By Jim Lang on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
No, a phony exoneration during the middle of the campaign would have brought a lot of questions… whereas now, the story will just sink and Burns can happily get on with his life as a DC lobbyist. It’s the job he was born for.
By goof houlihan on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
Burns indictment on ice until after the election?
October 26, 2006
Well, here’s an interesting rumor that’s worth passing on to you: an indictment is waiting in the US Justice Department for our very own Conrad Burns.
Rumors flying out of the US Justice Department say that…new indictments in the Jack Abramoff bribery scandal are now prepared, but are being held back until after Election Day…The two about to face the music are Senator Conrad Burns of Montana and Congressman John Doolittle of California according to sources inside Justice…
But far beyond that, the last thing the Republicans need is more news stories about corruption in Congress. The question know is, have Bush and Rove interfered in an ongoing Justice Department investigation because of a political agenda?
So it looks like somone’s playing politics with the US Justice Department, and it ain’t the Democrats. Well, I’ve been saying for months that Burns is likely headed for the ‘pen, and it looks like his time is approaching.
It’s ironic, then, that Burns’ supporters are touting seniority as the reason we should vote for him. Take Brad Franklin’s endorsement of Burns in the Sidney Herald:
Conrad is on the committee on appropriations; committee on commerce; committee on science and transportation; committee on energy and natural resources; committee on small business; and the committee on aging. Max is on the finance committee; environment and public works committee; and the agriculture, nutrition and forestry committee. Denny is on the committee on appropriations. I have not included their sub-committee positions.Finance and appropriations committees in Washington, D.C., relate to financial benefits received by all Montana residents.
We, in Montana, cannot afford to lose the above positions, of which, the first criteria is longevity/seniority. Consequently, as I see it, we must re-elect Conrad Burns and Denny Rehberg in November 2006, and Max Baucus, if he runs, in 2008.
Remember, all you Republicans and Democrats, we have people in majority and minority positions of power, no matter if the majority is Democrat or Republican in the Senate.
Why would any Montana voter, regardless of political preference or whether you like or dislike the candidate personally, vote to lose our envious positions in national politics?
Besides being completely amoral, this line of thinking was well countered by Matt in a post today about this very issue of seniority. Basically he argues that both Burns and Baucus aren’t much longer for the Senate so in 8 years (tops!), we’ll have to start fresh anyway. Why not start building seniority now before Baucus retires?
Of course, if Conrad wins the election, it appears that this is the most likely scenario:
Burns Gets Reelected, Gets Indicted, Resigns: In this scenario, we’re in the absolute worst case we could be. Whoever gets appointed to finish Burns’ term doesn’t go in tied with his or her fellow newly elected Senators for seniority, they’re always a step behind. That will matter. And there’s no promise from caucus leadership for a seat on approps, so kiss that committee behind, if it’s truly a big deal to you.
Remember, if Burns loses his office, it’s the Governor who gets to name his replacement. If appropriations are your gig, it’s better to vote for Tester and allow him to racking it up right away rather than wait until Burns dons the orange jumpsuit.
–Posted by touchstone
Posted in Conrad Burns | 18 Comments »
By Shane C. Mason on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
You keep using that word exonerated. I don’t think that it means what you think it means.
By goof houlihan on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
“To free from a burden, to discharge”.
Yep I DO know what exonerate means, and I just quoted you the Websters #1 meaning. The Bozeman Daily Chronicle headline reads, “Burns Cleared By Feds”.
I’d say that saying Burns is no longer under investigation DOES free him from a burden and discharge him from the investigation. So I’d say “exonerate” works perfectly in its preferred sense.
Websters New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged
By Jay Stevens on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
I believe, and have plenty of information to back up my suspicions, that Burns was crooked. I was wrong that he would be indicted. Thanks for posting my post in its entirety, goof; it makes it pretty clear the post was an opinion, not a claim to any inside information any of you lacked, as claimed by others in the ’sphere.
Again, I’ll debate Burns’ ethics with any of you. Any day.
By Craig on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
Where did you get the information about the indictment, and why didn’t you share it either now, or then?
Otherwise, it looks to me, and to any casual observer that you made it up out of whole cloth.
Ethics debate, indeed!
By Craig on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
It’s all coming back now that I look back at Jay’s original post. He took the rumor from another site, and passed it along as a factual rumor.
Still and all a rumor, with no basis in fact that I can see outside of some anonymous blog post.
By goof houlihan on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
“Well, here’s an interesting rumor that’s worth passing on to you: an indictment is waiting in the US Justice Department for our very own Conrad Burns.”
I don’t see any reference to opinion in that quote, Jay.
By Mark T on Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
Burns was (is) corrupt. And in all his years in office, it never occurred to him that he represented the whole state and not just his moneyed backers. He was a disgrace.
By Eric Coobs on Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
It’s nice to be proved correct on this one.
I told everybody a year ago that the Democrats were lying on this issue.
There was nothing there.
Tester’s response to this story?
“No Comment”
Jon Tester is a perfect example of what’s wrong with politics today, in that he bought/lied his way into getting elected.
Tell me Dems, what do you think of Tester after a year?
Has he changed the culture in Washington? Does he still hate earmarks? Has he gotten a seat on appropriations yet? Has he voted to end the war?
By Jay Stevens on Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
I did link to an anonymous post, and I was even called out on that the same day I wrote it.
However, given the subsequent revelations of the politicization of the DoJ,I’m still not sure the rumor was false; we’ll probably never know. Is the investigation over — for now? Definitely. Is Burns innocent of the accusations I leveled against him? I don’t believe it for a second.
Integrity and ethics are values I believe in and demand of my representatives. And I firmly believe Burns did not share those values.
I regret that the post — written more than a year ago — has clouded that issue.
By Jay Stevens on Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
I don’t see any reference to opinion in that quote, Jay.
Copying the post without including the link, and then accusing me of failing to reference it is disingenuous, goof.
By goof houlihan on Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
You got full credit, touchstone. Nothing sneaky or underhanded about posting the entire post with credit.
It’s not like I wasn’t intending on giving you full credit for saying that Burns had been indicted, just a few days before the election. That was the point of the post, giving you the full credit.
It was certainly clear I didn’t claim the words as my own, either. And there’s nothing sneaky or underhanded about my posting the entire post here, and crediting the author, or disingenuous, either. It’s yours, forever, and anyone else’s who archived it for future use.
And it’s clear I didn’t claim the post for my own, nope. It’s clearly intended to credit “touchstone” for the whole sordid post.
But for anyone else to archive it for future reference, you can find it at this link:
http://4and20blackbirds.wordpress.com/category/conrad-burns/page/3/
By goof houlihan on Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
But you did try a little personal attack in an attempt to avoid my point, I see. Here’s the point again, in case you’d like to respond to it:
“Well, here’s an interesting rumor that’s worth passing on to you: an indictment is waiting in the US Justice Department for our very own Conrad Burns.”
I don’t see any reference to opinion in that quote, Jay.
By Chad on Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
If the DoJ had come out and said that the investigation of Conrad Burns showed that he was innocent, that would be an exoneration in the legal sense. And also in the denotative sense, if you use most any dictionary aside from the one miraculously quoted above.
That the DoJ just, for whatever reason known only to the DoJ (because they’re seemingly not telling), stopped investigating does not mean that Mr. Burns has been ‘cleared’, ‘acquitted’ or even ‘exonerated’. It means they’ve stopped investigating.
And if someone on the sinestra side of blogging had tried to split this hair the way the dextra side appears to be, I submit that the dextra side would be all over that like white on rice.
Or Burns on soft-money donations, whichever analogy you prefer.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
By goof houlihan on Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
Good thing for me the dictionary I quoted is, next to the OED, the definitive one.
I’ve got one at the office and one at home, too. And the OED on line.
By Jay Stevens on Jan 7, 2008 | Reply
It’s not like I wasn’t intending on giving you full credit for saying that Burns had been indicted, just a few days before the election.
I never said that.
Geez, when you call something a rumor, you are saying it’s:
1: talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
2: a statement or report current without known authority for its truth
(See, I have a dictionary, too.)
And when you link to said rumor, the reader can judge whether it’s credible. That’s an “opinion.” Blogs are full of “opinions.” Sometimes they are wrong.
I thought it had merit. Apparently it didn’t. Oops. But I don’t think it exonerates Burns. I don’t think his burden has been “lifted” in any discernable way, other than folks who apparetly do want to tie their reputations with the former Senator. (Go for it!)
I’ll gladly wear my reputation as someone who thought Burns was unethical and unfit for office and who thinks the better man won the 2006 election.
By David Crisp on Jan 12, 2008 | Reply
Does your reference to reporters who “carried water” on these charges without doing research refer to anyone in particular? I can’t recall any reporters who fit that description. My recollection is that a number of reporters did quite a bit of research on this without reporting anything that wasn’t true. Please set me straight.
By Craig on Jan 12, 2008 | Reply
JP has addressed this at length somewhere else, but I can’t find a link right now. (I’ll work on digging it up.) Names that come immediately to mind are Jennifer McKee and Gwen Florio. There’s the other reporter at the Trib whose name escapes me right now.
Abramoff said that he got everything they wanted from Burns’ committee, and everyone seemed to take him at his word and didn’t even bother trying to uncover the other side.