Morning joe on Huckabee rape stuff

[Benaiah]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9v0sHePXBX8

[torchbearer]

whoa.

[Cindy]

I bet this in part explains why he had all of his hard drives with public records on them shipped off to be destroyed before he left office in Arkansas.

I can't beleive this public record information destroying, rapist supporting "candidate" has supporters.

The dumb reporter in that clip asks, " How can we confirm that he got these letters from women, letting Huck know, he would do it again?"

I think the fact that he was convicted and sentenced to jail already for doing it would've been Hucks first clue that he needed to stay behind bars.

[torchbearer]

I bet this in part explains why he had all of his hard drives with public records on them shipped off to be destroyed before he left office in Arkansas.

I can't beleive this public record information destroying, rapist supporting "candidate" has supporters.

The dumb reporter in that clip asks, " How can we confirm that he got these letters from women, letting Huck know, he would do it again?"

I think the fact that he was convicted and sentenced to jail already for doing it would've been Hucks first clue that he needed to stay behind bars.

Amen, this story makes me VERY angry... I already didn't like the guy, now he is directly responsible for a woman being raped and killed.... raped with her 3 year old baby right beside her in the bed....my blood pressure is through the roof right now!

[ItsTime]

I tried not to vomit when they said that.


Amen, this story makes me VERY angry... I already didn't like the guy, now he is directly responsible for a woman being raped and killed.... raped with her 3 year old baby right beside her in the bed....my blood pressure is through the roof right now!

[torchbearer]

huckster is going down... good ol' chum act isn't going to work anymore.

[specsaregood]

The worst part in my mind is that it seems to have been entirely poltically motivated.

The crime the guy was sentenced for, was for the rape of a distant cousin of clinton. So it appears that the republicans pressured Huckabee to release this monster early, as payback!

That is just plain sick. Rewarding a criminal with the motive of "punishing" the distant relative of a political enemy. Huckabee should be ashamed.

[thisisgiparti]

if this doesn't show poor judgment and an unsettling nasty streak, I don't know what does. Huckabee has a theology degree, supports the death penalty and then cracks jokes about it. some things are a matter of life and death and merit serious reflection.

[torchbearer]

time for the people of Arkansas to come clean about ol' hucklberry.

[seapilot]

This quote from the video comments concerns me more than Huckleberry does, those with poor judgment vote for those with poor judgement.

I'm glad Huckabee has been upfront and HONEST about all these ridiculous claims coming against him.

I'm voting for Mike Huckabee.

[torchbearer]

This quote from the video comments concerns me more than Huckleberry does, those with poor judgment vote for those with poor judgement.

I'm glad Huckabee has been upfront and HONEST about all these ridiculous claims coming against him.

I'm voting for Mike Huckabee.

ask them...
Can those people really trust his judgement? What if the next criminal he pardon's as president ends up raping and murdering your child?

[torchbearer]

//

[fcofer]

Anyone who has read my posts knows that I am no fan of the Huckster's. I normally love it when I see him get trapped by his contradictory prior actions -- delicious schadenfreude. But I can't just join the pile-on here. If this debacle takes him down in the polls, that's fine with me, but I'm not going to be an advocate for what I perceive as unfair treatment. I just don't think that Huck acted that maliciously, or that irresponsibly.

DISCLAIMER: I didn't watch the broadcast, and I don't know much of the facts about the Wayne Dumond case. But, let's suppose that Ron Paul was the incoming governor of a state, and that the following facts are true:

(1) An individual is charged with raping the cousin of the previous governor;

(2) Prior to his trial, two "vigilantes", who are never apprehended, break into his home and forcibly castrate him;

(3) Ron Paul has real doubt about the fairness of the man's trial, given the political machinery set in motion against him;

(4) Despite the fact that it would be a politically unpopular move, in the interest of justice and fairness (need for a fair trial, plus the awful punishment of mutilation already inflicted) Ron Paul paroles him.

STOP.

Now, this judgement ended up being wrong, we all know this. But nobody here on these forums is advocating that rapists shouldn't get fair trials, or that we should lock up all potential rapists in order to avoid the possibly that one will escape and commit a heinous crime. I'm certain that most here favor the concept of executive clemency (where the executive can pardon a person if he feels that the judicial system has failed) -- that's a protection against government tyranny, and one of the things that we like, right?

Now, maybe I changed the facts a little bit too much, and the real facts are much less favorable. If that's so, ask yourself if your argument condemning the Huckster depends on the facts being different, or if it would work just as well under the assumptions I made. If so, maybe it isn't that fair of an argument, after all.

As I've mentioned before, I actually think that if Huck acted against his political interest and paroled a rapist (not a good political move!) because he genuinely thought that the guy had not been fairly tried, then that, ironically, raises my opinion of him far more than any other thing he's done in his entire political career. Of course, ironically, it might destroy his campaign with respect to the people who are attracted to the other 99% of his political record. (But that's the price you pay for pandering to the anti-liberty vote.)

[Bossobass]

Back in June at the Iowa rally, there was a guy dressed in prisoner overalls with a sign, "Felons for Huckabee". He stood across the street from the venue and protested Huckabee for this very case, which, when I inquired, he explained to me in detail.

When I got back home, I looked up the available info and verified his account, as well as dug up many other Governor Huckabee stories.

After speaking to the protestor, I worked my way into Huck's 'war room', talked to the folks in charge, picked up his written strategy plans and then met with the Huckster himself.

Two months later, with Guliani, McCain and Fred Thompson bowing out, Huckabee placed second in the Iowa straw poll, despite not spending a single dime (because he didn't have a single dime to spend). This, coupled with the Diebold snafu, hit my BS radar like a fat boy.

Since both Guliani's and Romney's attempts to attack Ron at the debates had failed, Huckabee was then given his chance to attack Ron at the September 5 CNN debate.

This was followed by the Family Values debate a week and a half later, which was conspicuously absent Guliani, Romney, Thompson and McCain. This is the debate that began Huckabee's recent media push, which has been on a steady uptick ever since, during which time Huckabee has avoided Ron altogether.

This is only my take on the Huckabee 'phenomenon' as I've watched it from the beginning. I don't believe that telling people about Huckabee's escapades as the Arkansas Governor is mud slinging. I believe it's simply making people aware of very pertinent facts regarding a candidate who is getting a free ride when they probably would otherwise not know them.

Bosso

[mtmedlin]

Anyone who has read my posts knows that I am no fan of the Huckster's. I normally love it when I see him get trapped by his contradictory prior actions -- delicious schadenfreude. But I can't just join the pile-on here. If this debacle takes him down in the polls, that's fine with me, but I'm not going to be an advocate for what I perceive as unfair treatment. I just don't think that Huck acted that maliciously, or that irresponsibly.

DISCLAIMER: I didn't watch the broadcast, and I don't know much of the facts about the Wayne Dumond case. But, let's suppose that Ron Paul was the incoming governor of a state, and that the following facts are true:

(1) An individual is charged with raping the cousin of the previous governor;

(2) Prior to his trial, two "vigilantes", who are never apprehended, break into his home and forcibly castrate him;

(3) Ron Paul has real doubt about the fairness of the man's trial, given the political machinery set in motion against him;

(4) Despite the fact that it would be a politically unpopular move, in the interest of justice and fairness (need for a fair trial, plus the awful punishment of mutilation already inflicted) Ron Paul paroles him.

STOP.

Now, this judgement ended up being wrong, we all know this. But nobody here on these forums is advocating that rapists shouldn't get fair trials, or that we should lock up all potential rapists in order to avoid the possibly that one will escape and commit a heinous crime. I'm certain that most here favor the concept of executive clemency (where the executive can pardon a person if he feels that the judicial system has failed) -- that's a protection against government tyranny, and one of the things that we like, right?

Now, maybe I changed the facts a little bit too much, and the real facts are much less favorable. If that's so, ask yourself if your argument condemning the Huckster depends on the facts being different, or if it would work just as well under the assumptions I made. If so, maybe it isn't that fair of an argument, after all.

As I've mentioned before, I actually think that if Huck acted against his political interest and paroled a rapist (not a good political move!) because he genuinely thought that the guy had not been fairly tried, then that, ironically, raises my opinion of him far more than any other thing he's done in his entire political career. Of course, ironically, it might destroy his campaign with respect to the people who are attracted to the other 99% of his political record. (But that's the price you pay for pandering to the anti-liberty vote.)

It would be real easy for DR. Paul. One thing the huckster doesnt like mentioned is how she sat down with Huck and pleaded to him. not to let him out. She said she could tell he made up his mind so she got within an inch of the hucksters face and said "I will never forget his face because this is how close he was to me for over an hour"
I think RP would listen to her and make the correct decision. Political motivations or not, ......believe the rape victim.

[klamath]

Anyone who has read my posts knows that I am no fan of the Huckster's. I normally love it when I see him get trapped by his contradictory prior actions -- delicious schadenfreude. But I can't just join the pile-on here. If this debacle takes him down in the polls, that's fine with me, but I'm not going to be an advocate for what I perceive as unfair treatment. I just don't think that Huck acted that maliciously, or that irresponsibly.

DISCLAIMER: I didn't watch the broadcast, and I don't know much of the facts about the Wayne Dumond case. But, let's suppose that Ron Paul was the incoming governor of a state, and that the following facts are true:

(1) An individual is charged with raping the cousin of the previous governor;

(2) Prior to his trial, two "vigilantes", who are never apprehended, break into his home and forcibly castrate him;

(3) Ron Paul has real doubt about the fairness of the man's trial, given the political machinery set in motion against him;

(4) Despite the fact that it would be a politically unpopular move, in the interest of justice and fairness (need for a fair trial, plus the awful punishment of mutilation already inflicted) Ron Paul paroles him.

STOP.

Now, this judgement ended up being wrong, we all know this. But nobody here on these forums is advocating that rapists shouldn't get fair trials, or that we should lock up all potential rapists in order to avoid the possibly that one will escape and commit a heinous crime. I'm certain that most here favor the concept of executive clemency (where the executive can pardon a person if he feels that the judicial system has failed) -- that's a protection against government tyranny, and one of the things that we like, right?

Now, maybe I changed the facts a little bit too much, and the real facts are much less favorable. If that's so, ask yourself if your argument condemning the Huckster depends on the facts being different, or if it would work just as well under the assumptions I made. If so, maybe it isn't that fair of an argument, after all.

As I've mentioned before, I actually think that if Huck acted against his political interest and paroled a rapist (not a good political move!) because he genuinely thought that the guy had not been fairly tried, then that, ironically, raises my opinion of him far more than any other thing he's done in his entire political career. Of course, ironically, it might destroy his campaign with respect to the people who are attracted to the other 99% of his political record. (But that's the price you pay for pandering to the anti-liberty vote.)

I don't know that it was politically motivated but the democrats will sure spin it that way if Huck goes against them in the general election. As far as anything else I think you should read up on the case. This guy was involved in a murder of a man and the molistation of another teenage girl prior to the rape that got him in jail. He wasn't some poor innocent framed victim that the governor felt compassion for.

[fcofer]

It would be real easy for DR. Paul. One thing the huckster doesnt like mentioned is how she sat down with Huck and pleaded to him. not to let him out. She said she could tell he made up his mind so she got within an inch of the hucksters face and said "I will never forget his face because this is how close he was to me for over an hour"

Well, that definitely adds some facts that would tend to contradict the assumption that the governor thought in good faith that the rapist had been unfairly convicted.

On the other hand, I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that Huckabee would free a rapist to "get back at Clinton". That just sounds ludicrous. It makes no political sense whatsoever, and it would mean assuming that the guy is not just a political huckster, but downright evil. I just can't believe that he would take the enormous political damage from freeing the guy if he didn't think that the guy probably deserved to be freed.


Political motivations or not, ......believe the rape victim.

Well, that would be up to the circumstances. Believe me, there are plenty of rape trials, complete with a tearful, legitimate rape victim, where the accused ends up absolutely cleared by DNA evidence. There are people being freed from jail today after 20+ years in prison who were totally innocent due to the "believe the rape victim" legal precedent. Certainly, I am for treating rape victims with respect, and I think that rape is one of the most heinous of crimes and should be reciprocally punished, but I'm not willing to sacrifice even one innocent person's liberty for either of these goals.

Ask yourself... do you really think that he thought the guy was probably guilty, or do you think that there were circumstances that raised serious doubt in his mind about the guilt of Dumond?

[fcofer]

As far as anything else I think you should read up on the case. This guy was involved in a murder of a man and the molistation of another teenage girl prior to the rape that got him in jail. He wasn't some poor innocent framed victim that the governor felt compassion for.

Nope, I didn't know that. :eek:

Gosh, it's still just so hard for me to think that he would have released someone whom he knew (or strongly suspected) was guilty, though. For what?

[klamath]

Nope, I didn't know that. :eek:

Gosh, it's still just so hard for me to think that he would have released someone whom he knew (or strongly suspected) was guilty, though. For what?
I am taking into consideration that a lot of democratic partisan fact finding may be going on but what seems solid is Huck didn't review the case like he should of for a case like this and he seems to be doing a lot of political back pedalling and sliping and sliding.

[klamath]

Nope, I didn't know that. :eek:

Gosh, it's still just so hard for me to think that he would have released someone whom he knew (or strongly suspected) was guilty, though. For what?

This gives a pretty good overview of the whole case.

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419

[wfd40]

And this, folks.. is why Ron Paul will win.

[Midnight77]

They're scrambling on how to spin this on Huck's Army.

http://www.forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3289&start=0