Oh, well I guess I'll vote for him now.
Good grief.
Posted on 10/25/2007 3:32:25 AM PDT by americanflyer1234
The bosses of New York's five Mafia families in the mid-1980s came a hair-trigger away from sanctioning a hit on then-federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani, according to bombshell FBI records made public today.
Before cooler heads prevailed - the mob bosses decided by a razor-thin 3-to-2 margin not to try to whack the future mayor and presidential candidate - at least two of the dons argued fervently that the mob-busting U.S. attorney should sleep with the fishes.
Bonanno boss Philip “Rusty" Rastelli, Genovese chief Vincent “The Chin" Gigante and Lucchese honcho Anthony “Tony Ducks" Corallo all cast votes to spare the headline-grabbing prosecutor, the documents show.
But the young guns of the bunch, Gambino boss John “The Teflon Don" Gotti and Colombo chief Carmine “The Snake" Persico, were said to lobby in favor of the murder. .
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Are you new or a retread?
Oh, well I guess I'll vote for him now.
Good grief.
Let’s not forget that the real reason Rooty was the US Attorney in Southern NY — it was a demotion from his post as Assistant Attorney General.
**************
Heh. No kidding?
Nope, Rooty Toot doesn't lie. He's a liberal through and through who had adopted a Clintonesque-style of developing his own definitions for words and terms like "strict constructionist" and then making promises based on definitions he doesn't bother to share with the public.
I certainly wasn’t a promotion.
Keeping somewhat in line with this, would it be wrong for me to say I wanted the finale for the Sopranos to end with all of them getting gunned down?
I dislike mobsters that much.
Even Lizzie Borden wants to whack Guilani.
Can we get a recount?
/jk
“if you can’t tell the difference between a lie, a betrayal of trust, and a broken campaign promise”
I give up, what is the difference?
A betrayal of trust is another term for oathbreaking. A person takes a promise before God to do a particular act in the future, then breaks it. That's a step more culpable than a campaign promise, which is usually not entirely a statement of fact but depends upon future events, and is not a solemn vow.
Campaign promises should not be broken, of course, but that is a degree less culpable than breaking an oath, which is several degrees less culpable than a deliberate lie.
Giuliani has shown his culpability in both of the last two categories. So did Bill Clinton, and if folks had been less angry at G.H.W. Bush and had considered the difference between breaking a campaign promise, breaking an oath, and deliberately lying and committing fraud, things might have turned out quite differently.
The SOLUTION is to elect a real conservative with a proven track record. That way we don’t have to spend four years crossing our fingers and wondering every time an important issue comes up if this is when it’s all going to collapse.
Actually, they're not worth a pitcher of warm spit, to mis-quote John Nance Gardner.
Where the hell do they get these nicknames?
They had to agree to take out a high profile government official because all the families would be feeling the heat as a consenquence if they did.
The modern mob is different from the Mafia of the early 1900s. Back then they never deliberately took out anyone unless they were involved personally in criminal activities, and never touched government officials unless they had been on the take and then ratted them out.
Back in 1980, GHWB was running around calling Reagan’s proposed tax cuts “Voodoo Economics.” Then he spent eight years as VP going along with Reaganomics and presumably seeing how well it worked.
So, when he said, “Read my lips: No new taxes,” a lot of us thought that he had learned from Reagan and that we could trust him. But as soon as he got the job, he reverted back to his liberal ways and gave us a tax cut.
I’m not getting burned like that again. In 1988 I had a fair amount of trust for Bush, but I don’t trust Rooty one damn bit!
“I’m not getting burned like that again.”
That’s all well and good. But why do I still think that someone like Fred Thompson or Huckabee will end up betraying your trust?
Huckabee is off the reservation on immigration, and Thompson has been a fierce foe of the tort reform. He is very much a lawyer, and has lobbied for Planned Parenthood.
When you find the perfect candidate, please tell me who it is.
I don’t see Duncan Hunter who I would prefer gaining any ground.
Rooty and Romney are unacceptable.
So, I think it will have to be either Thompson or Huckabee and that conservatives will have to impress upon them the reality that there will be severe consequences for betrayal (i.e. we would support a different nominee in 2012).
IMO, Fox has been using it to create sympathy and awe for Rudy (but mostly to deflect from his long association with Kerik and his mob ties). Rudy also brought it up during his October 16th Hannity “interview”, so I don’t believe it is resurfacing just because of the DeVecchio trial. (Begins just before the 8 minute marker)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poa8rXtonLM
I think it is part of “damage control.”
It is old news. The only thing that is “new” is the FBI records themselves. Rudy has been using this to gain support during interviews and speeches on the campaign trail.
Funny thing, though. According to the FBI files, they did NOT put out a hit on him. In Rudy’s version, they did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.