[Al Arabiya Latest] Former French president Jacques Chirac is to be tried on allegations that he gave 21 political allies false contracts as ghost workers in Paris city hall, in an unprecedented move against a former French head of state.
A statement from Chirac's office on Friday said he and nine others were charged with a role in awarding contracts for non-existent jobs. The statement described the former president as "serene."
The retired Chirac, 76, who was mayor from 1977 until 1995 when he was elected president, is not certain to go on trial, as Paris public prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin had previously said that there was no case against him. Marin is likely to appeal the decision by Xaviere Simeoni, a magistrate whose role is to investigate cases and decide whether suspects should face trial. If he does, an appeals court would make the final decision in another year or so.
The charges investigated by Simeoni related to 35 work contracts allegedly awarded by Paris city hall as favors to friends or associates of Chirac's political camp. She concluded that 21 out of the 35 were for non-existent jobs.
The statement from Chirac's office said he was "determined to demonstrate to the tribunal that none of the contracts that are still in debate were for non-existent jobs."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/31/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
I wonder how her support will shake out between the die-hard RINOs who will now have to go for Owens and the die-hard GOPers who can now go for Hoffman? Actually a pretty classy statement from Scozzafava.
Republican Dede Scozzafava has suspended her bid in next Tuesday's NY 23 special election, a huge development that dramatically shakes up the race. She did not endorse either of her two opponents -- Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman or Democrat Bill Owens.
Scozzafava has "probably made her last campaign appearance between now and Election Day," spokesman Matt Burns told POLITICO. "She's releasing her support to the two other candidates."
Scozzafava's statement:
Dear Friends and Supporters:
Throughout the course of my campaign for Congress, I have made the people of the 23rd District and the issues that affect them the focal point of my campaign. As a life long resident of this District, I care deeply and passionately about its people and our way of life. Whether as a candidate for Congress, a State Assemblywoman or a small town Mayor, I have always sought to act with the best interest of our District and its residents in mind--and today I again seek to act for the good of our community.
The opportunity to run as the Republican and Independence Party candidate to represent the 23rd District has been and remains one of the greatest honors of my life. During the past several months, as I've traveled the district, meeting and talking with voters about the issues that matter most to them, I've been overwhelmed by the amount of support I've received as I sought to serve as their voice in Washington. However, as Winston Churchill once said, Democracy can be a fickle employer, and the road to public office is not always a smooth one.
In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I've come to accept is that in today's political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money--and as I've been outspent on both sides, I've been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record. But as I've said from the start of this campaign, this election is not about me, it's about the people of this District. And, as always, today I will do what I believe serves their interests best.
It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my Party will emerge stronger and our District and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.
On Election Day my name will appear on the ballot, but victory is unlikely. To those who support me -- and to those who choose not to -- I offer my sincerest thanks.
#4
Despite disagreement with almost everything about her political positions, she deserves thanks for being pragmatic if not principled in dropping out. Thanks you for making that seat Right again!
#6
The fact that she feels like she has to reaffirm her loyalty to the Republican party confirms what everyone already knew - she is not and never was a real Republican.
The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):
Section 2531, entitled "Medical Liability Alternatives," establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]...... a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys' fees or imposes caps on damages.
So, you can't try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you've actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!
While there is debate over the details, it is clear that medical malpractive lawsuits have some impact on driving health care costs higher. There are likely a number of procedures that are done simply as a defense against future possible litigation.
Dozens of lawmakers have drawn scrutiny from their ethics monitor this year for everything from financial dealings to travel and campaign donations, according to a leaked account showing an active House panel secretly at work.
Seven of the lawmakers--four not previously known--serve on a defense appropriations subcommittee that divvies up money for Pentagon contractors.
Most of the names and investigative subjects, mentioned in a summary of the ethics committee's work last July, were known. But the summary--obtained by The Washington Post--shows the widespread scope of preliminary reviews and investigations the panel can have before it at any one time.
If anything, the document rebuts arguments of some watchdog groups that members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct--the ethics committee--do little to investigate their colleagues.
The document shows the scrutiny involved some 30 members last summer, but it lumps together lawmakers who are subjects of a complete investigation with subpoena powers with those who may simply have asked for a ruling on a proposed trip to be financed by a private sponsor. Full investigations by an investigative subcommittee are announced publicly.
Committee Chairman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and ranking Republican Jo Bonner of Alabama, went further than usual on June 11 by announcing they were examining the conduct of some lawmakers on the defense panel even though no investigative panel was formed.
Members of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee had steered targeted appropriations called earmarks to clients of a now-defunct lobbying firm--PMA--and received contributions from the firm and its clients.
The names of defense subcommittee chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., and Democratic members Jim Moran of Virginia and Peter Visclosky of Indiana had previously surfaced in connection with the inquiry.
The document adds the names of Norm Dicks, D-Wash.; Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio; ranking subcommittee Republican C.W. Bill Young of Florida and Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan.
All four have received campaign contributions from PMA's political action committee and employees. Donation figures compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics show that:
_PMA's PAC and employees together were the single biggest source of political money to Dicks in each election cycle from 2003 through 2008 when donations are analyzed by the givers' employers. Dicks received roughly $89,500 from them during that period.
_The lobbying firm's PAC and staff also were Kaptur's top single source of donations by employer during the 2008 election cycle. Collectively, they gave her about $28,500 for the last election and $12,500 for the 2006 election, a total of about $41,000. They gave her nothing in 2003-04.
_Tiahrt raised roughly $19,750 from PMA's PAC and employees from 2003 through 2008.
_Young collected about $9,250 from the 2003-04 election cycle through last year.
The Pentagon budget panel had such an allure for Kaptur--who represents a Toledo-anchored Rust Belt district--that in 2005 she gave up her party's top seat on the agriculture subcommittee to claim a rare open seat on Murtha's subcommittee. She would have become one of a dozen Appropriations subcommittee chairmen had she stayed put.
A spokesman for Kaptur, Steve Fought, said she expected to be cleared.
"The congresswoman has always emphasized openness and transparency, and it almost goes without saying she will continue to cooperate," he said. "She's saying there was no quid pro quo."
Dicks said, "I can assure you that I have always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with all applicable House rules and statutes. I am confident that all of my actions as a member of the House have been appropriate, and I expect that when all the inquiries are concluded, I will be completely exonerated."
The document was leaked to The Washington Post after a junior ethics staff member saved it on the hard drive of a home computer. The staff member, who had information sharing software, didn't realize that someone could download the file but was subsequently fired anyway.
A House staff member, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss the matter, said the committee employee's actions were inadvertent but violated House rules requiring the safeguarding of official documents.
The Recording Industry Association of America said the disclosure was evidence of a need for controls on peer-to-peer software to block the improper or illegal exchange of music. Some lawmakers have tried for years to bring this about.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/31/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
NSA intercept picked up Jane Harmon asking for leniency for someone. Original report said it was hacked from a nonsecure site and now they say leaked. Finally some bipartisan work is being done!
The White House is sending Vice President Joe Biden to upstate New York to campaign for Democrat Bill Owens in a last-minute push to help Democrats pick up the longtime Republican House seat.
The Biden rally will be taking place next Monday morning in Watertown.
"I'm honored to have the President and Vice President's support," Owens said in a statement announcing the vice-presidential visit. "I am excited to welcome the Vice President to Watertown where we'll discuss my plans to create jobs Upstate and my commitment to helping turn the page on the George Bush economic agenda."
The Biden event comes the day before the special election, which has turned into a two-way contest between Owens and a third-party Conservative challenger, Doug Hoffman, who has captured the momentum in the race in the last several days.
It's the second time Biden has campaigned for Owens -- he went up to Syracuse in September to fundraise for him. And Obama headlined a New York City fundraiser for Owens last week.
For Owens to win, he needs to gin up the Democratic base in the upstate New York district to show up at the polls -- voters who don't normally turn out for off-year elections.
The visit by Biden underlines how badly national Democrats want to snatch this seat, Republican-held since before the Civil War, from the GOP. But it also reflects Democrats' 11th-hour efforts to avoid a clean sweep Tuesday of the three mostly closely-watched races.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/31/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Stupid Joe and his verbal diarrhea aren't likely to help.
Lacking both money and political momentum, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom withdrew from the California governor's race today.
"With a young family and responsibilities at City Hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to - and should be - done," Newsom said in a statement.
"This is not an easy decision," he said. "But it is one made with the best intentions for my wife, my daughter, the residents of the city and county of San Francisco, and California Democrats."
Newsom's withdrawal leaves state Attorney General Jerry Brown, who has yet to declare his candidacy, as the lone major Democrat in the 2010 race.
Brown issued a statement saying, "Mayor Newsom is a talented public official and I believe he has a bright future.I am sure this was not an easy decision."
The latest Field Poll showed Brown with a 20-point advantage over Newsom, double the lead he held in March.
Brown also has been raising far more money than Newsom. Through June, he reported bringing in $7.4 million more than the mayor.
Before announcing his withdrawal, Newsom abruptly canceled a campaign event that had been scheduled for tonight in Southern California, setting off speculation among his fundraisers that he was pulling out.
At a City Hall news conference dealing with the bay oil spill, Newsom was asked whether he would be in town this weekend. He said he would be, and that reporters "would have a political story Sunday." He did not elaborate.
For Newsom - who reported having just $1.2 million on hand as of June - the task of raising enough money to challenge Brown was daunting. Recent spending reports show that even a big Los Angeles fundraiser with former President Bill Clinton pulled in just 13 individual contributions over $5,000 - hardly the kind of cash haul to signal Newsom would be able to mount a serious challenge.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/31/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Playing "Guess the Party" again, he's a Dem? Right?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
10/31/2009 1:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
He's a San Francisco Dem which puts him slightly to the left of Hugo Chavez and to the right of Jerry "Medfly" Brown.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/31/2009 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In other words, he didn't have any support outside San Francisco and a few little enclaves like West Hollywood.
Thank goodness for some small favors.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/31/2009 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I'd call Newsom a douche-bag, but that would be an insult to douche-bags everywhere. He loathes the military, yet loves gays performing public displays of sexual perversion, he's anti-small business, but pro ALL illegal aliens, and yes, he enjoys spending time with his mistress.
But, hey, it's San Fran. Probably take an epic earthquake to get him outta there. Maybe he'll run for the Senate next lol.
A New Jersy appeals court has concluded that Americans have no Second Amendment right to buy a handgun.
In a case decided last week, the superior court upheld a state law saying that nobody may possess any handgun without obtaining law enforcement approval and permission in advance.
That outcome might seem like something of a surprise, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in the D.C. v. Heller case that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
But New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Stephen Skillman wrote on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel that Heller has no impact upon the constitutionality of the state law.
Thats because, Skillman said, the Supreme Court did not strike down the District of Columbias de facto handgun ban but instead simply ordered the city to issue a permit.
In other words, while Americans may have the right in general to possess arms, the exact contours of that right have not been mapped, especially as the Second Amendment applies to state laws.
(The court's majority opinion last year said: "We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.")
Look for the Supreme Court to revisit this question in a few months when it hears a case called McDonald v. Chicago. It's a constitutional challenge to Chicago's restrictive gun laws, which prohibit anyone from possessing firearms -- even in their homes -- "unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm."
New Jersey's laws are similar. They say: "No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of, nor receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire a handgun unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder... has first secured a permit to purchase a handgun as provided by this section."
Another section dealing with licensing says: "No person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives, and who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter, shall be denied a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, except as hereinafter set forth." Some of the exceptions involve criminal records, for instance.
What prompted the current lawsuit was a request for a handgun purchase permit that Anthony Dubov submitted to the East Windsor Chief of Police. The police chief denied Dubov's request without giving any reason, in what the appeals court later ruled was a violation of state law. The current East Windsor police chief is William Spain.
Oddly, the trial judge upheld that denial, without asking the police chief to testify to explain himself (another violation of state law) and after taking the unusual step of contacting Dubov's previous employers to ask about his background.
Dubov's attorney, Michael Nieschmidt, argued that the state licensing scheme was unconstitutionally vague and therefore violated the Second Amendment.
Skillman concluded that while the Second Amendment doesn't apply, state law and precedent nevertheless required that Dubov receive more due process than he did.
The appeals court wrote: "Accordingly, the trial court's affirmance of the police chief's denial of appellant's application for a firearms purchase permit is reversed, and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing in conformity with this opinion."
#1
Looks to me like a logical ruling, and a surprisingly intelligent article on it.
The irony is the decision on the requirement that the applicant be a 'person of good character and repute' is to be decided by government officials of New Jersey, who are not known for being such people themselves.
#3
No problem here at all: go ahead and invalidate the 2nd amendment. Go ahead. I dare you.
The Tea Party folks need only one more big issue for the coming 2010 election.
Go ahead. See what happens.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/31/2009 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What's so hard about understanding "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?
The Militia being defined as every free able-bodied (white originally) male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. Hell, they were required to have weapons.
Posted by: ed ||
10/31/2009 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I really think that Judges are jealous of how much congress is hated and reviled and want the same. It's rapidly reaching the point where the common American can see that the judges are stepping away from the constitution and committing treason.
#6
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?
The anti-gunners argue that "Militia" equates to military and National Guard. However, the Courts, to my understanding, have decided that the 2nd Admendment is an individual right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
#7
Wasn't the ruling in the D.C. case 5-4 in favor of individuals' rights? Scary, since we now have Sotamayor weighing in. The Chicago case will be the one to watch and, like Steve White states above, I'm really, really hoping it gets a lot of publicity.
#8
I actually live in East Windsor NJ and know the attorney Michael Nieschmidt. EW is actually relatively gun friendly in a NJ sort of way. Sounds like some personal issue between Dubov and the Chief. Nieschmidt is a pretty solid lawyer as far as I know. NJ does not have a right to bear arms in it's constitution. We are desperately waiting for 2nd amendment incorporation.
#9
If the courts succeed in gutting the 2nd amendment, I shall suggest that the Tea Parties propose the 28th amendment, to wit:
28th Article of Amendment
Section 1. Neither the Congress nor the legislatures of the several states shall impede, encumber or abridge the right of law-abiding citizens to own, purchase and carry ordinary firearms, or to own and purchase ammunition for such firearms. The Congress and the legislatures of the several states may, at their discretion, require a record of firearms ownership, but no such requirement shall be used to abridge, encumber or limit the rights of citizens in this Section.
Section 2. The Congress and the legislatures of the several states may, at their discretion, limit, encumber or abolish the right of ownership of ordinary firearms for any person convicted of a serious felony or breach of the peace under due process of law.
Section 3. The words of this article shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of its ratification.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/31/2009 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The anti-gunners [want to] argue that "Militia" equates to military and National Guard.
However, that is not true. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution stipulates that Congress regulates the militia which it does already in Title 10 United States Code, Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 -
Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areâ
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
In fact, what most people call the 'draft' is actually the selective activation of the unorganized militia. Now what they could put forth is that a 'handgun' is not a proper weapon for the militia outside of officers and members handling crew served weapons, but that in turn would imply that they are entitled to own the standard weapons of the Army and Guard which would be the M16 and its variants. Now in desperation the anti-gun folks could try to repeal subparagraph (2), however then any future 'draft' would run afoul of the 13th Amendment.
#12
Except Article I, Section 8 specifically gives Congress that authority to define what it is [not that it has stop the Judiciary from usurping such authority in the past]. It's there because the Founding Fathers were products of hundreds of years of English history which included a little dust up called the English Civil War (1641â1651). A key component of which was 'who', the King or Parliament, got to determine the purse string of the military, who appointed the officers, and who wrote the laws governing the military. The Founding Fathers wrote that in specifically to exclude any question of 'who' was, which was the legislative branch.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Al Arabiya Latest] Former French president Jacques Chirac is to be tried on allegations that he gave 21 political allies false contracts as ghost workers in Paris city hall, in an unprecedented move against a former French head of state.
The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):
The White House is sending Vice President Joe Biden to upstate New York to campaign for Democrat Bill Owens in a last-minute push to help Democrats pick up the longtime Republican House seat.
