New court filing directly ties congre...

New court filing directly ties congressman Don Young to Alaska corruption probe

There are 108 comments on the KFSM-TV Fort Smith story from Oct 24, 2009, titled New court filing directly ties congressman Don Young to Alaska corruption probe. In it, KFSM-TV Fort Smith reports that:

Documents filed in federal court directly link U.S. Rep. Don Young to a wide-ranging investigation of corruption in Alaska for the first time.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KFSM-TV Fort Smith.

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#82 Oct 24, 2009
progressive wrote:
<quoted text> OK , did you read my offer? You can have Murtha too, if he is guilty of something. Jane Harmon too if she is, and all the crooks in the Daley machine, even if Rahm did something crooked, and you get him too. In return for the whole truth about Bush Cheney and Rove, and their crooked connections, and accomplices. Would you take that offer? I'd throw in both Clintons and Carter and Obama too, if I could also have Bush I, Reagan, Ford, and all of the dishonorable things that Nixon and Kissinger and chotiner and colson and the other Nixonites did, when he was a candidate - for anything, and Senator and vP and President - and put it in the history books!
urray Chotiner and Colson etc, did all the crooked things Nixon did when he
i don't give a rat's ass WHO it is, or WHAT they are ... if they ... make that ...WHEN they do something illegal, and they ALL do!
they should be tried and punished...

the idiotic "gloating" by democrats when a republican gets caught doing something wrong is just as nauseating as a republican gloating over a dishonest democrat.

save your slobbering to "get" bush and cheney for somebody else.

“Kiss Me You Fool!”

Since: Jan 08

Atlanta via Brooklyn NY

#83 Oct 24, 2009
Typical.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#84 Oct 25, 2009
progressive wrote:
Very interesting article - another reason for an independent ethics panel, and not just House members passing judgment (or not!) on other House members. I'd make a deal with right-wing white racists - I'll give you Rangel for Young and Doc Hastings, of Washington, who made an improper phone call to the U. S. Attorney in Washington State, and tried to pressure him to take political action against Democrats in the Governorship recount matter, for Republican political gain. I'll also swap Grayson for Joe Wilson of S. C.- all five of them can leave the House, as far as I'm concerned. You already got a nice young Asian-american Republican to replace Jefferson in New Orleans, but the Democrats should win back that seat with a non-crooked Democrat, in that district.I would even make you a bigger deal, and let you find out all the real crooks in the Chicago machine, and out them, in return for finding out everything about what Karl Rove has ever done. Want to make that deal? and indict all the lawbreakers who are implicated in their activities? with whom has Rove conspired, do you think? Blackwell, Cheney, the prosecutors in Alabama who falsely prosecuted a Democratic challenger for Governor? Gonzales, Kyle Samson, and other small fry also. What fun it would be to have all those guys outed- and I don't worry about good guys in Illinois being outed - I trust that they are honest, but merely too realistic to challenge the Daley machine, as well as too decent to be compromsied by any truly unsavory connection with it. Not sure about Rahm, but he is on the table too, in my offer! Any takers from the gOP? I didn't think so! Oh yes, you can have the allegedly-corrupt New Jersey mayors for free, if the media will also discuss the orthodox Jewish rabbis who were also implicated in money laundering.(I think I support the third candidate for governor in that state - jsut to shake up the party system there. Corzine as a Senator was one thing - just his votes counted, though I prefer the current Senators to him - I admit I am anti-Goldman Sachs - but as Governor he is the business of New Jersey voters. But nationally, it would help a lot if the independent won in a big upset. It might teach both of the big parties a lesson. google Dagget New Jersey, and check him out. He could not be worse than the other two, coule he? Sounds quite respectable to me, by comparison. just my first impression, but some say he won the debates. I'll try to find it on youtube or cspan, and decide for myself. At least he does not wrestle in briefs and a boa!
I am waiting for a right-wing Republican to say he or she would accept this deal.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#85 Oct 25, 2009
carey knows he is one of the nasty ultra-right-wing types whom I do not respect. I think he may be a white racist, too, but it is not out in the open. I also think he is a Cheney supporter. He mostly attacks, and it is more difficult to know what he is for. He is dumb or nasty or crazy if he thinks "they are ALL" corrupt. I'd more likely think that he is!
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#86 Oct 25, 2009
however, fair is fair - and I think both parties have partisans who gloat when someone of the other party is caught in a misdeed or scandal. But Republicans are more likely to say it is "water under the bridge" and we should forget about it, if it was a Republican who did the misdeed, and to blame Carter and Clinton and Kennedy and Carter forever for their mistakes. I would not mind if they blamed LBJ for his misdeeds, for a long time, but they do not seem to do that.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#87 Oct 25, 2009
I did not gloat over Mark Sanford, or even Ensign -I denounced Republicans for being too admiring of the adulterers Gingrich, Guiliani, and McCain, and the client (of the DC
Madam) Vitter. and for mostly picking on Sanford, who is term-limited, and on his way out anyway. looks like they wanted to spare everyone else, and just concentrated on him. So I ask - what is the good thing about him, that makes them pick him to be the one to trash?
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#88 Oct 25, 2009
I did not want Bill Clinton back in the White House either, and Hillary was a non-starter for me as a Presidential candidate. But Cheney is evil. Clinton was mediocre and a lech - not as dangerous.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#89 Oct 25, 2009
McCain would have been a terrible, dangerous President. He may sound rational at times, with a low tone, ahnd the popular nationalistic war-mognering words! but he has a wildly out-of -control temper, and goes into rages, sometimes over little things, as several very credible, believable people - who were in a postition to see it happen - have tetified to. But I do not have a nasty enough vocabulary to say what I think about Cheney.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#90 Oct 25, 2009
the quotes from several Republican Senators about McCain's rages have appeared in print - but they don't repeat them, especially not when McCain was a candidate, or while he is a powerful Senator.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#91 Oct 25, 2009
M<cCain wants the gOP to unite behind Obama if he gets more into the war, and wants to rush him into it, before the election, in Afghanistan.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#92 Oct 25, 2009
terrye wrote:
Speaking of outing someone, Try Chris Daggett! He is a former director of the NJ DEP and a "Party Guy" all the way. He refused to sign the pledge not to take another Govt job after the election.
There is little difference in his "Plan' for tax increases from Corzine's and there is no difference of opinions between him and Corzine on anything. He is just a spoiler for Corzine, who at 14 points behind, had to do something. Daggett is about as independant as Corzine's left thumb.
<quoted text>
Let's assume you are correct, that he is a spoiler, for Corzine. Whom would you prefer as Governor, Daggett or Corzine? I assume you are for the Republican, but which of the other two would you oppose the least.
Elvan

AOL

#95 Oct 25, 2009
progressive wrote:
however, fair is fair - and I think both parties have partisans who gloat when someone of the other party is caught in a misdeed or scandal. But Republicans are more likely to say it is "water under the bridge" and we should forget about it, if it was a Republican who did the misdeed, and to blame Carter and Clinton and Kennedy and Carter forever for their mistakes. I would not mind if they blamed LBJ for his misdeeds, for a long time, but they do not seem to do that.
So how is it you get to pick who "pays" for their misdeeds? Or who gets the fickle finger of fate pointed at them?

As for your POW trade offer, I'm not a right-wing Republican, so maybe I can't even play. But I am a conservative, and I don't plea bargain.....you do the crime, you do the time, I don't care which club you are in.

Clinton committed a felony. That's a high enough crime and misdemeanor to have been convicted and removed. The saddest part about the Clinton scandal was not his malfeasance...the whole world knew he was a habitual sexual harrassor, had been for most of his life. The saddest part was the moral convolutions the Dems went thru to convince the citizens that he wasn't really guilty of anything.

And, it was the Republicans who finally forced Nixon out. It was when the GOP support began to erode that he resigned, knowing he could not fight off impeachment proceedings. And I believe any fair-minded observer knows that the only reason Clinton wasn't convicted was because "his club" controlled the Senate. Had Clinton been a Republican, the speeches of Harry Byrd and Ted Kennedy and that screaming Congressman from FLA would have been different....his "reprehensible misdeeds" would have "risen to the level of........".

The ruling class of wealth, power, and privilege are mostly concerned about maintaining their membership in the club. Nearly every vote most of these low-lifes cast is aimed at their own re-election. TERM LIMITS would eliminate that possibility.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#96 Oct 25, 2009
IrrationalRightwinger wrote:
<quoted text>
He must be a REPUBLICAN because Fox News is not harping on the scandal like they did for Charlie Rangel, Acorn, John Edwards, etc.
you could be right since none of the state media and papers printed anything until a week after the third vidio....all the liberal media is run damage control for Obama.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#97 Oct 25, 2009
progressive wrote:
McCain would have been a terrible, dangerous President. He may sound rational at times, with a low tone, ahnd the popular nationalistic war-mognering words! but he has a wildly out-of -control temper, and goes into rages, sometimes over little things, as several very credible, believable people - who were in a postition to see it happen - have tetified to. But I do not have a nasty enough vocabulary to say what I think about Cheney.
as opposed to someone that can't speak a sentence without a teleprompter.........and goes into tantrums everytime he is caught in another lie and has Rahm send out the union thugs to beat up black protesters.
terrye

North Arlington, NJ

#98 Oct 26, 2009
progressive wrote:
<quoted text> Let's assume you are correct, that he is a spoiler, for Corzine. Whom would you prefer as Governor, Daggett or Corzine? I assume you are for the Republican, but which of the other two would you oppose the least.
I'd prefer Steve Lonegan! If I voted for Daggett, I'd be voting for Corzine's stand in. Who needs that?
Regards, Terry
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#100 Oct 26, 2009
terrye wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd prefer Steve Lonegan! If I voted for Daggett, I'd be voting for Corzine's stand in. Who needs that?
Regards, Terry
Sorry, I am relying on national media coverage, and know nothing about Steve Lonegan. Want to tell us about him? What party, what policy views, etc? Still curious whether folks who are moderate or even liberal, but are so-so about Corzine, would prefer him nonetheless, or dare to vote for Daggett. I can easily understand that the right-wing types would prefer a Republican or Conservative.(note, I merely mean those right of center on the political spectrum - this is not my usual attack on the ultra- right-wing extremists, who are a smaller, more vocal bunch). Naturally I oppose Regent University, sexist, racist, homophobic types - but many who are right of center are decent folks. Especially those who oppose the real wasteful spending, even when Republicans do it! I like folks like Walker at the Petersen Institute, for example.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#101 Oct 26, 2009
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>as opposed to someone that can't speak a sentence without a teleprompter.........and goes into tantrums everytime he is caught in another lie and has Rahm send out the union thugs to beat up black protesters.
You are a complete liar about the telepropter business, and you probably know it - though there is no underestimating the stupidity of those who hate Obama. We in Iowa heard Obama campaign in our state, and dozens of town meetings (I attended two of them, and watched others on cspan) and he did not use a teleprompter in those meetings. He used them in the big speeches to big crowds, when he had a prepared speech - and usually he either wrote or heavily edited the prepared speech, or had it compiled from things he had already said in other talks, so as to be on message). He would not have had Rahm do anything like that - you must be crazy! What Rahm might or might not do on his own, I will not vouch for. I don't like Rahm. If he slips up, out he goes, as far as I am concerned. I think it is more likely that he was put into place to verbally "beat up on" moderate House Demcorats, to get enough of them to vote for bills that they will get attacked for supporting - attacked by right-wing nut-case partisan gOP liars. Like Oklahoma Inhofe supporter types.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#102 Oct 26, 2009
but if you wish to clarify about the incident you describe, and give a source of your information - then we could see what you are talking about. I admit I don't know what incident you refer to. When, where, what, how, who - etc? and more than one source, please, and not newsmax or rason magazine, please, or a church publication of regent or any other nut-case right-wing religious group, please. This is not a double standard - I never cite Kos or Huffington.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#103 Oct 26, 2009
or move,on - even if they are correct, I know they have no credibility with anyone right of center.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#104 Oct 26, 2009
Term-limits, without an iron-clad ban on the revolving door, where members of Congress or their staff members leave congress and go to work for special intersets, as Billy Tauzin and Phil Gramm did - would ensure that members of Congress votge for the intersts of the special interst gorup they want to get a job with later. Tauzin brazenly did it. He was negotiating for a job with big pharma around the same time that he was getting a bill passed that had lots of big profits in it for big pharma. Term-limits are anti-democratic, in that the voters do not get to elect the person of their choice. We need non-partisan districting for state legislatures and congressional seats - something that Iowa has, and most other states don't. In some cases it would help to have proportioal representations, so minority views are not outnumbreed and then completely unheard - city councils could use that system, for example. We need campaign finance reform - and something to overcome the horrible Supreme corut decision to water-down the McCain Feingold law so it is nearly useless - but not quite. There also needs to be reform in Congress so seniority does not automatically rule, especially in the House where committee Chairmen, from one-party districts, have too much power. the GOP went too far, in the 6-year limit and out, because Jim Leach was the best possible chairman of the Banking (Finiancial Services ) Committee. Better than almost anyone else in warning against the passage of bills that led to the S&L crisis, and derivatives crisis. So even seniority is not automatically wrong, either. I certainly favor asking - cordially - Senator Byrd to step down as President pro tem of the Senate, and giving him a big honorable and actual title and responsibility, of Senator-historian of the Senate, to work with the professional historians. a new position of Deputy President pro-tem has been created in the past, to confer high honor on someone either on the way down, or the way up, so why not a good function such as Senator-historian, for a long-serving member who ws there for much of what happened for a half century!? The seante should elect its president pro tem because that person is in the line of Presidential succession, in the Constitution. The position is more than jsut an honor - it is potential power, in a terrible emergency - so it is important to make a careful choice. Someone fully informed, with an even-temper, decisive enough but not impatient, widely respected and relatively non-controversial. Someone like Lugar, the Republican ranking member of the Foreign Relations committee, or Levin, Democrati Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Not McCain or Kerry, because they already ran an lost, and would not command unified national support in an emergency.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Don Young Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Tax bill boosts oil, gas drilling a " and renew... Dec '17 CodeTalker 53
News Fire brigade called in after man suffers 'penil... (Mar '17) Mar '17 nuther Dysfunction 1
News Soybean prices fall to 2-mth low on ample supply (Mar '17) Mar '17 Mac 1
News Alaska is Now Purple (Oct '16) Oct '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News Alaska provisions survive House vote in key def... (May '16) May '16 Jaimie 6
News Republican fear-mongering over Syrian refugees ... (Nov '15) Nov '15 positronium 31
News Alaska Gov. Walker downsizes Washington, D.C., ... (Nov '15) Nov '15 Sarin Palin 1
More from around the web