The Return of Conrad Burns |
3rd January 2008
Did that title scare you? Don’t worry, I am unaware of any plans Burns may have to seek public office again, but his name has come up again, and for good reason. Yesterday, Burns was informed, by the Justice Department, that he was no longer under investigation for any role in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Given the role that the Abramoff connection played in last years (I suppose technically, it was two years ago now) election, this is pretty important news.
Let me be clear that it isn’t important because it exonerates Burns, because it doesn’t. This isn’t an admission of innocence, but merely that the Justice Department has removed Burns from the investigation, which is ongoing. It is quite possible that Burns is completely innocent with regards to Abramoff; it is also quite possible that he is guilty but there is insufficient evidence to prove it. That is the bitch about these things; you never can know for sure.
There are certainly those who, whether or not they admit it, expect an apology from those of us who believe that Burns is still guilty (I guess you can consider this option C, Craig). I suppose that such people also want an apology from everyone who believes that O.J. was guilty as well; I mean he was acquitted, right? Any sane person acknowledges the shortcomings of the legal system; we don’t always find out the truth, as much as we might like to. Again, that doesn’t mean that I know Burns is guilty anymore than I know he is innocent. I believe him to be guilty, I believe that removing him from office was the right choice, and I think it is silly to expect apologies just because the legal system hasn’t proven his guilt.
While I am willing to admit I could be wrong about him, I flat out refuse to apologize for what I believe, and I don’t think any of us should (short of perhaps anyone who declared that an indictment was guaranteed).
I don’t know if Shane had a “Burns” category where we could look to all the predictions of his impending conviction, but I vagely remember many here said he’s going away.
I think the Abramhoff scandal to use a better word was all about “traction”. What I mean is Conrad’s illegal contributions hit the road like a new pair of studded snow tires, while Hillary’s and Tester’s Hsu donations have slid off the road.
Conrad’s indictment would show unequal treatment, something both parties would like buried in a snowbank.
My God. It’s impossible to prove a negative, which is why in this country innocence is prima facia unless guilt can be proven. The burden of proof is on you to show that Burns did what you have so enthusiastically accused him of doing.
So I’ll pose for you the same question that I did for Blue Jay. What evidence - other than the feeling in your gut spawned by the echo-chamber of “anonymous sources” in the Montana media - have you of what you believe so eagerly?
If over the past year the amount of posts and stories, along with their own linked ‘evidence’, is not enough to show why I feel that Conrad was a corrupt and guilty man, then nothing else I can provide now probably will either. Plus, the burden of proof is not on me since I am not a prosecutor; just an average citizen with my own opinions, which you are certainly free to disagree with.
I think those of us who believe Conrad is guilty have sufficiently explained our reasons and given our evidence; those people who feel he is innocent have just constantly said “where’s the evidence”. Apparently, it hasn’t been enough for Burn’s supporters, but for that matter, it probably never would have been…
Colby, I don’t for a minute think that Craig (and not me for sure) are looking for anyone to apologize for thinking Burns a crook. Rather, those who spread baseless roomers about pending indictments “on good authority” are those who should consider the morality of doing such things.
I recall the rage caused by the roomer of McCain having an illegitimate child in 2000 directed a BushCo. Is this much different?
Then I apologize if I was generalizing too hastily. Craig’s post, more then anywhere, seemed to me to hint at anyone who believes that Burns was guilty. You are obviously speaking more of a specific incident, about which I am obviously unaware. Can you direct me to the post where (I am assuming) Jay made the claim; I would love to read it. I too would be displeased with the assertion of facts when there are none.
Dave’s got it right. You can find Jay’s post here.
Never mind. I see Dave had it below.
Please excuse my poor spelling above.
I can’t find the “on good authority” rumor quote but I’m not the only one who remembers it. Craig spoke of it last night and Mike Harris remembered it too.
But there are other instances like this.
I may be wrong that it was Jay who said it, but the above link is about the same.
Dave, that’s the second and third time today I’ve seen you misspell ‘rumor’ as ‘roomer’, Is this some attempt to make a point? If so, kindly get to it.
Second, I’d like to know who positioned you as the moral judge of Jay Stevens. If he had heard, from a source he trusted, that indictments were pending, what obligation to you, us or Conrad did he have to keep such knowledge quiet? You, on the other hand, are no stranger to reaching into the playground box of kiddie tricks to support rumors of Hillary Clinton’s lesbian fetishes. So kindly elucidate from wence your moral authority flows.
It’s “whence.” And since when is being a lesbian a “fetish?” The point is that it wasn’t reported as a rumor, but as an insider’s scoop of information designed to tilt the election. And if you think that is okay, get ready for it to come back and bite everyone in the ass.
There is a difference between an honest mistake and manipulating rumor that if against a private person would be slander, in order to further a candidate. Win at all costs is not a source of moral authority.
Actually, Steve, “wence” is a perfectly acceptable spelling now. Look it up, or do I need to do your research on that as well?
You tell me, Conservo-Boy. It’s your kind that say so. Perhaps you’d best adjust your irony detector.
It already has, to which you’ve written … nothing. So much for your moral high ground. But I have noticed your support for the Swiftboat Veterans for lies and financial kickback. Hmmm.
So please, Steve, do tell me, considering how absolutely wrong you’ve been about so many things, why should I care that Conrad Burns is not being investigated anymore, when he presumably was during the election?
He lost. Get over it, as you righties are so fond of saying and yet whimper when it’s used against you.
Put your money where your mouth is Wulfgar and show me where I ever supported any notion that Hillary is a lesbian.
Show me. And while you’re at it show me where I’ve ever repeated a rumor. Show me.
Oh Dave, rumor mongering? You? Never! You’d never promote the idea that Hillary is a Communist! Only an idiot would promote the idea that there’s an unhealthy relationship between a former President and his wife. Something sexually wrong with Hillary Clinton? You’d shudder at the thought!
And yes, little Davey Budglet, I am disgusted that those links might lead rational adults to read the juvenile spew of your misogynistic website.
Dave, I just did post a comment to you, showing exactly what I claimed. Unfortunately, the spam filter saw fit to eat it. Please, by all means, call me a liar. It will be that much sweeter when Shane recovers the comment.
Fixed it for you.
Wulfgar, more proof that the only thing that eclipses your lack of insight is your lack of sense of humor.
And how exactly did either of those promote a rumor.
Denial, ain’t a river in Egypt, kitten. I’m certain that readers will make up their own minds … something you’ll not be able to bluff your way past.
I’m certain readers will make up their own minds too, but I’m not bluffing anything and you haven’t shown any words of mine that support your accusation.
There is no there there.
Never propagated a rumor? In this comment thread you wrote:
\”I can’t find the \’on good authority\’ rumor quote but I’m not the only one who remembers it. Craig spoke of it last night and Mike Harris remembered it too.\”
I never said that. The only time I mentioned the indictement was in that post, and I clearly called it a \”rumor.\” That you all think I said something else is a product of your rightie echo chamber.
Never mind the second comment. There it is. (Shane, you’re welcome to delete the detritous.)
Damn pertty nasty tone in here…Can’t we all just get along? I suppose not!
Best line that makes the most amount of sense that I have ever seen Wulfie write: “Shane, you’re welcome to delete the detritous.”
But wouldn’t that delete everything that he ever wrote?
You really don’t like being found lacking, do you Steve?
Conrad is about as innocent of wrongdoing as Clemens. All of the circumstantials point to guilt - all that’s missing is a smoking gun. The man was corrupt.
Hmmm…I’m still waiting for an “I guess you were right Coobie” as I was saying 18 months ago that there was nothing there.
What’s Tester think about being proved a liar?
“No Comment”