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

Oct 24, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: KFSM-TV Fort Smith

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.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of108
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“"I'm A Great American!"”

Since: Sep 08

Obama Nation! USA! USA!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Let the Don Young death watch begin...
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

3

3

2

PooPoo Platter wrote:
Let the Don Young death watch begin...
I have a scandalous admission to make. Many months ago, when all I knew about her was that she was against Don Young, and against certain alaska lawmakers who got bribes and payoffs from some of teh oil guys whom I actually saw in little snippets of film on TV, talking about teh pay-offs, and ben Stevens, I think. I thought Palin was a reform Republican! Please forgive me, wolves and polar bears and coyotes and other critters, and all informed persons who knew more about her then. I had to mend my ways very quickly by learning more about her. Seeing the videoSarah Palin:killkillkill - on youtube, took care of any illusions I had previously. Then I googled:Sarah Palin church witch, and got even more of an eyeful and earful - the laying on of hands by the so-called witch-hunter and the two other ministers (convenient for lechers to become right-wing nut-case ministers, if they want a pretext! I suspect), and his calling on God to gie her money and power - and then the second video in June jsut before the VP nomination - when she talked about how wonderful that first experience was. began to think that crooks who took bribes were the lesser of two evils!(Just as the crooked Democrat - Edwin Edwards, or whomever? was the lesser evil, when running against the neo-Klansman David Duke in Louisiana ).But I still am opposed to both, in both cases.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Term Limits req.

I would bet 75% of all Congressmen are guilty of corruption with 4+ terms. It's simply too easy for business to try and grease the wheel.
PooPooSplatter

Elkhart, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

3

2

1

He's done no worse than Obama wrecking this country.Besides, Innocent until proven guilty. Suck it up!! Democrap scum, with all your TAX CHEATS in the WHITE HOUSE ! you are all a bunch of two faced losers.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

3

1

1

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!
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

PooPooSplatter wrote:
He's done no worse than Obama wrecking this country.Besides, Innocent until proven guilty. Suck it up!! Democrap scum, with all your TAX CHEATS in the WHITE HOUSE ! you are all a bunch of two faced losers.
Not to be confused with poo poo platter. Bush and Cheney were the ones who got the U. S. into the unjustified war in Iraq, by lying to the Congress, the American people, the media. That was a big cause of the increased national debt. republicans in congress, especially under Bush, were also responsible for the huge incrase in earmark spending. You can check the facts. to be fair, there are some honorable real conservatives, like Jeff flake and others, who were oppposed to excessive earmarks whether they were done by Democrats or Republicans. But most Republicans are two-faced, and pretend that it is democrats who are responsible for earmarks, when both parties do it, and teh GOP was much worse for at least 6 years when they had control of Congress and the Presidency. as to the financial system and the drivatives problem, that takes an intelligent and informed prson to understand it, and it would not seem inviting to try to explain to the commenter quoted above! But for anyone interestedin becoming informed, go to pbs on-line, and look for the frontline program on A Warming, about what happened during the Clinton administration. That should help Republicans a bit, since Rubin and Summers look very bad, as does Geenspan. But that was only part of the story. Check on Phil Gramm, and the Enron amendments, in December of 2000, and the repeal of glass steigel, and the Senate vote on that, where only one Democrat voted stupidly, with the Republicans (clinton signed it - he was not my choice in the Iowa Democratic caucus in 1992 - I can blame him as I wish, and not need to apologize!). Read anything Jim Leach has to say about the situatino - he is a wise independent Iowa moderate Republican, who opposed the bill that set up the S&L crisis, by giving protection to depositers in S&L's without sufficient oversight of S&L loans, and who also objected to bills, or parts of bills, that set us up with casino capitalism gambling in derivatives, in secret, that led to the current mess. the Frontline story is excellent. There was a hero-ine! Male chauvenists beware! the middle-aged lady was correct - the male establishment was wrong!
Ross

Lady Lake, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

3

3

2

progressive wrote:
...non-crooked Democrat, in that district.
A non-crooked Democrat Orleans Parish???? There has not been such a thing since before Huey Long. Give me a break.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

3

3

2

The laughing liberal wrote:
Term Limits req.
I would bet 75% of all Congressmen are guilty of corruption with 4+ terms. It's simply too easy for business to try and grease the wheel.
You just accuse in general, with no evidence. Why not look into specific abuses by specific persons, and let that proceed, with a fair investigation? I think you like being able to have people to trash, and would be disappointed if they were all honest,, so it is in your interst to have a few of the crooks linger on too long, without being caught and prosecuted. I knew for years that Young was crooked, especially with regard to certain earmarks, and the Alaska situation. I suspect that you prefer negativity to reform. For example - I happen to think it is very iffy to get too involved in Afghanistan and Pakistan, against the Taliban. You seem to oppose it, but I think you oppose it because it gives you an excuse to attack Obama, not because you want to save the lives of american soldiers, or innocent civilians. Did you ever consider being detailed in favor of specific policies, and to look for candidates who support those policies, and be positive in favor of someone or something? Or is it mroe fun just to be an anti-? I am anti-corruption, including the parts of teh Dal;ey machine that are corrupt - but I bet many Republicans don't want that cleaned up, because they would lose something to attack and run against, and to use in slandring all Illinois Democrats, including those with no illegal connection to the machine. I have not been on topix very long (I came on in summer of 2008, to advocate that the DFL encorsement convention not endorse Franken, but allow an open primary instead), so I don't recall how anti-Bush and Cheney you were. or were you? and there is another word for term limits - elections! If voters in New Jersey would stand up and vote for teh third candidate, it would show people something - a lesson probably all need to learn - not to take stuff for granted! ust like that nutty Ventura did in Minnesota. Both parties need to be forced to nominate better people, or risk losing to a real independent maverick and a qualified one, if lucky! Not some nut like Perot, or an extremist like Ron Paul, whom I actually like for shaking things up, but would not want in power. Do you ever say what you are for? or do you only attack? I still skim your comments, and sometimes wish you would seaprate your negativity from your policy views, and express your ideas about a sensible solution, wo we could see what you advocate. Like about the Af-Pak war situation, for example. do you ever do that?
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 24, 2009
 
ou even are corret in writing it is too easy for business to grease the wheel. It would be even easier with term limits. then members of Congress would have no long-term career or security, in politics, and would look elsewhere - what better than becoming a lobbyist? and how better than by voting for all the thibngs that some lobby wants. Look up Billy Tauzin and see how he did it. ook up Phil Gramm and see how he did it. What is needed is a block on rhe revolving-door, from government to private corporate lobbying and advocacy - or at least a long delay. What is also needed is a stop to partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures - in Iowa we have non-partisan, professional redistricting, not party favortism or negotiations. What is also needed is an end to rewarding long service in Congress - especially the House - with powerful committee positions, or with automatic entitlement to be President pro tem of the Senate. That is one reason why I want Rangel demoted from his chairmanship now, while he is being investigated. It would be unfair to kick him out of the House, or off the Committee, with all the charges unproven, but he should not have any right to continue as Chairman. Pete Stark for Chairman, I say!(practicalcDemocrats are terrified of that -PS is the most fearless outspoken liberal in the House, and would be a target for gOP smears - they would have to go lower down in seniority to find someone less controversial)
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

pp - I am in a good mood, and invite you to have an intelligent conversation, for once, with someone who disagrees with you and regards you as mostly a negative disruptive person. I really am curious why - with some of your views that you hint at being intersting and perhaps even - dare I suggest it - sensible and principled (such as minimizing special interest influence, and not escalation stupid wars)- you do not come out as an advocate for your own suggested solutions, instead of always wanting to trash others. Is it because you are not serious about your views, but are needing to vent hostilities? Or because you do not think you can prove your case, but are confident about your ability to insult others?
Its a mistake

Milledgeville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Before you left wing nuts get all giddy, let me remind you how your witch hunt of Ted Stevens went...
----------

Tables Turned on Prosecution in Stevens Case

WASHINGTON — A federal judge dismissed the ethics conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, speaking in a slow and deliberate manner that failed to conceal his anger, said that in 25 years on the bench, he had “never seen mishandling and misconduct like what I have seen” by the Justice Department prosecutors who tried the Stevens case.

Judge Sullivan’s lacerating 14-minute speech, focusing on disclosures that prosecutors had improperly withheld evidence in the case, virtually guaranteed reverberations beyond the morning’s dismissal of the verdict that helped end Mr. Stevens’s Senate career.

The judge, who was named to the Federal District Court here by President Bill Clinton, delivered a broad warning about what he said was a “troubling tendency” he had observed among the prosecutors to stretch the boundaries of ethics restrictions and conceal evidence to win cases.

----------

And those corrupt prosecutors were...

...LIBERALS.

...no surprise there...

I remember Poo-Poo and Regressive ( who likes to call herself "progressive" ) had already lynched Stevens as soon as he was charged. And it turned out to be a Democrat hack job to win an election...

...no surpise there, either.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

or are you really not very well informed at all, perhaps, and just want to vent simplsitic opinions, without having good rational explanations about why they are workable? Try it with something where I might agree with you on principle - like how to reduce special interest influence, or what to do about avoiding getting into a bigger quagmire - wrong metaphor - higher mountain-top in winter - war? I think your posts have been sort of crawling, for too long, and it is now time for you to stand up and walk, especially if you do have some half-way decent underlying principles, and merely have fallen into the rut of negativity, instead of advocating what you believe in. I always distrust you, but do not regard you as as hateful or obscene as the ordinary right-wing nut-case partisan or superstitious slanderer types, who are for the special interests. I keep seeing your attack on Obama becasue he is going to escalate the war in Afghanistan, you think. But McCain and graham and the gOP war-hawks are for that. do you oppose them too? Or do you merely oppose whatever Obama does - would you oppose him if he made the oppposite choice, the one which you hint that you prefer - and not send more troops over there, and not fight the Ta.iban? Did you ever try just concentrating on the substance of policy?

“Knowledge IS Power”

Since: Apr 09

Allentown

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

3

3

1

progressive wrote:
<quoted text> You just accuse in general, with no evidence. Why not look into specific abuses by specific persons, and let that proceed, with a fair investigation? I think you like being able to have people to trash, and would be disappointed if they were all honest,, so it is in your interst to have a few of the crooks linger on too long, without being caught and prosecuted. I knew for years that Young was crooked, especially with regard to certain earmarks, and the Alaska situation. I suspect that you prefer negativity to reform. For example - I happen to think it is very iffy to get too involved in Afghanistan and Pakistan, against the Taliban. You seem to oppose it, but I think you oppose it because it gives you an excuse to attack Obama, not because you want to save the lives of american soldiers, or innocent civilians. Did you ever consider being detailed in favor of specific policies, and to look for candidates who support those policies, and be positive in favor of someone or something? Or is it mroe fun just to be an anti-? I am anti-corruption, including the parts of teh Dal;ey machine that are corrupt - but I bet many Republicans don't want that cleaned up, because they would lose something to attack and run against, and to use in slandring all Illinois Democrats, including those with no illegal connection to the machine. I have not been on topix very long (I came on in summer of 2008, to advocate that the DFL encorsement convention not endorse Franken, but allow an open primary instead), so I don't recall how anti-Bush and Cheney you were. or were you? and there is another word for term limits - elections! If voters in New Jersey would stand up and vote for teh third candidate, it would show people something - a lesson probably all need to learn - not to take stuff for granted! ust like that nutty Ventura did in Minnesota. Both parties need to be forced to nominate better people, or risk losing to a real independent maverick and a qualified one, if lucky! Not some nut like Perot, or an extremist like Ron Paul, whom I actually like for shaking things up, but would not want in power. Do you ever say what you are for? or do you only attack? I still skim your comments, and sometimes wish you would seaprate your negativity from your policy views, and express your ideas about a sensible solution, wo we could see what you advocate. Like about the Af-Pak war situation, for example. do you ever do that?
Dude... It's called a paragraph. Look into it.
Its a mistake

Milledgeville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

progressive wrote:
or are you really not very well informed at all, perhaps, and just want to vent simplsitic opinions, without having good rational explanations about why they are workable? Try it with something where I might agree with you on principle - like how to reduce special interest influence, or what to do about avoiding getting into a bigger quagmire - wrong metaphor - higher mountain-top in winter - war? I think your posts have been sort of crawling, for too long, and it is now time for you to stand up and walk, especially if you do have some half-way decent underlying principles, and merely have fallen into the rut of negativity, instead of advocating what you believe in. I always distrust you, but do not regard you as as hateful or obscene as the ordinary right-wing nut-case partisan or superstitious slanderer types, who are for the special interests. I keep seeing your attack on Obama becasue he is going to escalate the war in Afghanistan, you think. But McCain and graham and the gOP war-hawks are for that. do you oppose them too? Or do you merely oppose whatever Obama does - would you oppose him if he made the oppposite choice, the one which you hint that you prefer - and not send more troops over there, and not fight the Ta.iban? Did you ever try just concentrating on the substance of policy?
Talking to no one again? You really should see a doctor about that.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

my above comment was to laughing lilberal, not to the lying idiot from Georgia, whose comment intervened. Some slanderer who falsely attributes veiws to others, and uses adolescent personal insults, is unworthy of a conversation. But laughing liberal puzzles me sometimes, with hints about having some positive views - that I might even actually agree with, as in the two cases I cited - too much big-business influence, and too much war. Wonder if he dares reply to an invitation to be positive and rational, and substantive? I don't see why he wastes his time with endless negativity. I can see getting negative when annoyed, or under constant attack, but not as a opening gambit toward everybody, almost! a question - with whom does laughing liberal agree?
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

funny thing in the article about Stevens - the Judge was named by Clinton, the Justice Department officials worked for Bush! just becasue the prosecutors misbehaved, does not mean Stevens was innocent. But just because he was guilty, would not justify a second attempt to prosecute him, with a case so compromised by tainted prior action. It was the Obama AG and Justice Department that decided not to re-open the case. Stevens is old, and rwell-liked by GOP colleageues, and even some democrats, and would have had to be pardoned even if found guilty, out of compassion - since there was nothing dangerous about his crime. except how did they prop up the first floor to the second floor leve, to put a new first floor in - I never saw an explanation for that! looks like a dangerous construction site, to me! It was enough for Stevens to lose the election. I called teh Ga. guy a liar - becasue of his mischaracterization of my views on Stevens. I thought the judge was correct, and Holder was correct to drop the case, and I though tthe investigators and Bush Justice de0partment bungled the case agaisnt Stevens. a fine was all he should have been hit with, anyhow - a big fine, but not jail time. just hope he finally paid the contractor what he owed him. I would rather see a deeper, cleaner, honorable and proper investigation of Ben Stevens, and his alleged corruption! in alaska, where he was and maybe still is, very powerful in politics.

“Knowledge IS Power”

Since: Apr 09

Allentown

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

On one side of this issue, the article, in my humble opinion, mentioned the key problem with Congress today. It said he was a 19-term representative. I wonder just how far out of touch he is after all this time?

On the ohter side, let's evaluate what was really done. According to the article, this was about Allen authorizing his now defunct company to pay for an annual pig roast fundraiser.

"According to the document, Allen and former VECO vice president Rick Smith authorized corporate funds to pay up to $15,000 a year for expenses associated with Young's annual pig roast fundraiser between 1993 and 2006."

Many companies have so-called action committees who solicit donations from employees to use in lobbying efforts. Blue-collar, white-collar, any-collar. It doesn't matter. It is done on both sides of the aisle. The company itself is allowed to pay for the administrative costs of the committee, but it is NOT allowed to directly contribute.

I believe that, in this case, it is indeed a gray area. The costs of these pig roasts may be seen as being equal to the administrative costs of a PAC. I say this because Allen's company did not directly contribute to Young's campaign.

Mu geuss is that no charges will ever be filed. I seriously doubt there is even enough to sustain an ethics probe or censure. This is just good, old-fashioned mud slinging.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Doug K from Allentown wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude... It's called a paragraph. Look into it.
No it is called a wall of words, so the idiots won't look into it, and the highly intelligent speed readers who get content very quickly will get the point. Stay with your own kind.
Its a mistake

Milledgeville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

progressive wrote:
my above comment was to laughing lilberal, not to the lying idiot from Georgia, whose comment intervened. Some slanderer who falsely attributes veiws to others, and uses adolescent personal insults, is unworthy of a conversation. But laughing liberal puzzles me sometimes, with hints about having some positive views - that I might even actually agree with, as in the two cases I cited - too much big-business influence, and too much war. Wonder if he dares reply to an invitation to be positive and rational, and substantive? I don't see why he wastes his time with endless negativity. I can see getting negative when annoyed, or under constant attack, but not as a opening gambit toward everybody, almost! a question - with whom does laughing liberal agree?
Click on "reply" at a Laughing Liberal post, if you can handle that.

Feel insulted if you wish, but talking to no one in long continuous sentences is regressive behavior.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 24, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

At least I credit laughing liberal with not being an idiot. I jsut think he is wasting his mind a bit - keeping what he thinks too hidden, and just venting hostile feelings too much. At least I do assume a brain there, if he'd only be positive, or specific about policy, instead of making too many false accusations. Some false accusers do not have much brains, and have no other option.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of108
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••