Skip to comments.
Judge Wells Recusal Request (Judge Recuses Herself For Same Reasons Present In Traficant Case)
USCourts.Gov ^
| August 9, 2002
Posted on 08/15/2002 2:24:56 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
Click HERE to read the Acrobat Reader Document showing the reasons why Judge Lesley Wells recused herself.
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: jimtraficant; lesleywells
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Note that the reasons why Lesley Wells RECUSED herself in the Detore case were EXACTLY THE SAME as those that existed in the Traficant case. So can anybody out there tell me why this case should NOT be overturned?
1
posted on
08/15/2002 2:24:56 PM PDT
by
PJ-Comix
To: PJ-Comix
it will be overturned
To: cactusSharp
It should be overturned. This one looks like a NO-BRAINER....Unless the Appeals Court is just as corrupt as Judge Wells.
3
posted on
08/15/2002 2:28:56 PM PDT
by
PJ-Comix
To: PJ-Comix
there is more to this that the judge...
seems evidence or untoward testimony is being re looked at
by the justice dept as well....me smells an agenda
probably by Hillary to get Traficant simular
to how they (Bill & Hillary) went after Fife
Symington as well
To: cactusSharp
I know that subverter of justice, Craig Morford, the Traficant prosecutor is up for an appointment to U.S. Attorney from Cleveland. The White House is now deciding whether to approve his appointment. I sure hope not. Morford is a corrupt careerist who abused his judicial power in railroading Traficant.
5
posted on
08/15/2002 2:42:29 PM PDT
by
PJ-Comix
To: PJ-Comix
This was a Sick Willie/Reno vendetta come home to roost and it of course required that the judge be Sick Willie appointed. Note also however that Ashcroft apparently hasn't been told by his boss to pursue Sick Willie/Reno criminality. He has become along with traitor Lott part of the "let's just move on" crowd.
Ravenstar
6
posted on
08/15/2002 3:26:31 PM PDT
by
Ravenstar
To: Ravenstar
This was a Sick Willie/Reno vendetta come home to roost and it of course required that the judge be Sick Willie appointed Who cares if the liberals eat their own? Who you gonna feel sorry for next? Web Hubbel? Dan Rostenkowski? The black Chicago Democratic who was convicted for raping a 16 year old girl?
To: 11th Earl of Mar
No because they were criminals. Traficant had a judge that admits a conflict of interest so there is a reasonable doubt about the conviction. I guess it is okay to be a Traitor as Lott is as long as you vote a conservative line right? I don't function that way. If you help a known criminal get off, Which Slick was, then you are abetting that crime. The proof was already there. There are large gaps with no physical evidence linking Traficant to what he is accused of. The blue dress links Slick Willie to purjury. Trent Lott kept slick from facing a real trial. I know you will rationalize it on "they couldn't get a conviction" but that fault, Until he held a real trial, lies with the always vote consevative but let the liberal criminals off SPENT LOTT.
Ravenstar
8
posted on
08/15/2002 7:51:29 PM PDT
by
Ravenstar
To: Ravenstar
If you help a known criminal get off, Which Slick was, then you are abetting that crime There's another good reason to believe Traficant is a crook.
To: dubyaismypresident; hobbes1
free jimbo ping.
10
posted on
08/16/2002 4:31:33 AM PDT
by
xsmommy
To: 11th Earl of Mar
That is a non-sequiter. You are stabbing desperately trying to defend traitor SPENT LOTT. Principle requires you do the right thing even when it is not popular, instead Lott did the Sick Willie thing and checked the polls. Is it the rule of Law? or the rule of the polls, which would be mob rule.
Ravenstar
To: Ravenstar
I think you were dropped on your head as a child.
Listen to yourself. You are desperately trying to defend a Congressman who voted NOT to investigate Bill Clinton and voted NOT to impeach Bill Clinton.
And you think Trent Lott can make Traficant-like Senators vote to convict?
Lott at least voted to convict. If we had a Senate full of Traficants, Bill Clinton's votes would have been 100 to 0.
I thank God for all those in Congress who had more spine than Traficant.
To: 11th Earl of Mar
Traficant looked like he had been up for 48 hours before that vote also, The Party Machine got to him. Lott had no such pressure and it was LOTT's job to try. He became a traitor instead. If he did do it and failed then your argument would hold water. Instead all he did was quiver in cowardice and violate his oath of Office. If as you suppose there had been 100 Traficant's (and therefore no pressure from the Demorat machine) the vote would have held Clinton guilty of purjury. It is irrelevant whether he could have gotten the vote. This isn't a poll function. It is called upholding your oath of Office. SPENT LOTT didn't hold a real trial. He gave in to the Demorat machine, cheerfully, at least Traficant had to be coerced. I do have issues with the guy but a lot less than SPENT LOTT who betrayed the American people on a tragic scale.
Ravenstar
To: Ravenstar
In other words, "I hate Trent Lott because he couldn't get liberal Democrats like Traficant to vote against the president...
"But I support James Traficant, who voted with Bill Clinton, because he looked tired and was pressured to vote against his conscience by the Democratic machine...
"And if we only had more Traficant like people, Clinton would have been convicted, even though Traficant himself would not have voted to convict."
Do you live in Palm Beach?
To: 11th Earl of Mar
LOTT didn't try!!!! He violated his oath!!!! It seems you must have been dropped on your head. You just don't get it. If you are a LEADER you don't react to polls you honor your oath and hold a full trial not a KANGAROO KOURT FOR THE PERJURER and RAPIST. No DEMORAT went to even view the evidence because they knew they couldn't refute it. IF a real trial had been held TRENT LOTT could have compelled them through the process of the trial to face it. Instead he elected to become SPENT LOTT willingly. Which is worse?
Traficant atleast resisted SPENT LOTT cheerily marched right together with the Demorats.
To: 11th Earl of Mar
Without the pressure Traficant would have voted to convict or can't your brain grasp that. You are the one displaying the Palm Beach County mentality. "The poll and spinmeisters said they wouldn't get a conviction so we shouldn't even try!" "Let's just ignore the law and the CONSTITUTION in this case because it would be hard and might make us unpopular"!
Ravenstar
To: Ravenstar
"Let's just ignore the law and the CONSTITUTION in this case because it would be hard and might make us unpopular"! That is exactly what Traficant did!
Traficant: "If I vote my conscience, I will be unpopular with the Democratic Party. This is so hard! And I am so tired. I need some sleep. I have been up all night. [snif, snif]."
You claim Lott did not stand up to pressure. Why did you man back down so far, so fast and so easily?
To: 11th Earl of Mar
You don't get it! Traficant was physically coerced because the Demorats knew they couldn't afford to have any democrat that wasn't a Southern Democrat vote to Impeach Slick. SPENT LOTT was just fed a lot of bull which shouldn't have mattered anyway and so he abrogated his oath of office!!! Traficant didn't go willingly. SPENT LOTT Did.
Ravenstar
To: Ravenstar
Traficant was physically coerced Documentation, please.
To: 11th Earl of Mar
look at the tapes of what he looked like during the impeachment debate and any other tape of him a week or more before that. I am sure you are good enough on the search engines to find that.
Ravenstar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson