Author Topic: McCain's Secret Weapon - He Cheated!  (Read 3671 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: McCain's Secret Weapon - He Cheated!
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2008, 04:04:57 PM »
Having a hard time finding all the members of the committee.

Heflin for the D's

Rudman, Lott and Helms for the R's

Chaired by the D's



sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McCain's Secret Weapon - He Cheated!
« Reply #46 on: August 22, 2008, 04:15:38 PM »
Having a hard time finding all the members of the committee.  Heflin for the D's  Rudman, Lott and Helms for the R's  Chaired by the D's

Chaired by the D's you say??  Dems in the majority you say??  Naaaaaaa, he just got a slap on the wrist, right?  With the majority they'd have thrown the book at him, even IF he didn't do anything wrong, outside of exercise poor judgement.

Perhaps?...............................naaaaaaaa



"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McCain's Secret Weapon - He Cheated!
« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2008, 05:32:29 PM »
[edit] Cranston: severely reprimanded

The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that Cranston had acted improperly by interfering with the investigation by the FHLBB.[16] He had received more than a million dollars from Keating, had done more arm-twisting than the other Senators on Keating's behalf, and was the only Senator officially rebuked by the Senate in this matter.[17]

Cranston was given the harshest penalty of all five Senators. In November of 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to reprimand Cranston, instead of the more severe measure that was under consideration: censure by the full Senate.


So Cranston , a Democrat ,got reprimanded, by a comittee that was mostly Democrats and chaired by a Democrat?

I don't know why they should have held back so much on a Republican , perhaps he was just too clean.