This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is Galloway A Crook?

JonathanH

What the hell? Do you even know what the US Supreme Court is? Would you care to explain how they are involved?
--------------

Not at all. They could be waiting to file charges or waiting for more evidence to come to light or perhaps they don't want to create the storm that criminal charges would bring. Any number of reasons can be given for no criminal charges being pressed as of yet, it is silly to assume that this is because "there is no substance".

That would be "claimant" (or to use the previous term "plaintiff"), not prosecution.

Dude.. do u have to disagree with EVERYTHING i say?!!!! stop commenting on other people's comments and come up with something of your own for once..

Reply 21

Bdarnell

7

lady_daisychain

Dude.. do u have to disagree with EVERYTHING i say?!!!! stop commenting on other people's comments and come up with something of your own for once..

Reply 22

Alewhey

JonathanH

Not at all. They could be waiting to file charges or waiting for more evidence to come to light or perhaps they don't want to create the storm that criminal charges would bring. Any number of reasons can be given for no criminal charges being pressed as of yet, it is silly to assume that this is because "there is no substance".

This is ridiculous. Innocent until proven guilty, remember. What they have done is annouced he is a criminal, but not charged him. If and when they charge and convict him, then we shall decide that he was guilty. The fact is that until that time, we must assume they are smearing him.

Reply 23

Longshoredrift80

10

Alewhey

This is ridiculous. Innocent until proven guilty, remember. What they have done is annouced he is a criminal, but not charged him. If and when they charge and convict him, then we shall decide that he was guilty. The fact is that until that time, we must assume they are smearing him.

You're perverting a principle of the criminal justice system (and what I said) and twisting it to meet your own view. Nowhere did I say that he was guilty, I said that there may be a multitude of reasons why charges have not been pressed yet, and to assume its because there is no basis for charges is just silly. Furthermore, nowhere have I ever seen the principle of "smeared until charged" which you seem to be asserting exists. We are under no obligation to assume anything of the nature which you suggest, under any recognised legal principle.

Reply 24

DemonDemonic

OP

The nets's closing,

i have a funny feeling that his Ex wife will drop him init does anybody know if she's said anything in regard of the money link

Reply 25

Longshoredrift80

10

lady_daisychain

Dude.. do u have to disagree with EVERYTHING i say?!!!! stop commenting on other people's comments and come up with something of your own for once..

I often "come up with" and say things of my own, you only need to take a look around the D&D forums to know that. However, in this case, I am commenting on the rather large mistake that you have made in your post. Indeed, I usually know the basics of what I am discussing before I comment, a principle that your previous comment in this thread suggests you don't adhere to.

Reply 26

Cessie

2

DemonDemonic

LMAO, did any of you see the interveiw on chanel four news just now?
...the words "as sin come to mind"

he actualy looked quite flustered which is strange for a inocent man,

Channel 4 news interview was good. I don't think he looked too flustered. Certainly gave Jon Snow as good as he got... :p:

Reply 27

Longshoredrift80

10

DemonDemonic

i have a funny feeling that his Ex wife will drop him init does anybody know if she's said anything in regard of the money link

He's covering his back on the "wife" issue far too much for someone who knows of no wrongdoing... He keeps repeating that he has no responsibility for or any knowledge of anything involving his wife, as if he knows that there are some shady dealings in that area and is making damn sure he gets his story out first and absolves himself of any responsibility.

For example, he is now repeatedly talking about the estranged nature of his relationship with his wife and the fact they are soon to be divorced. Here are some extracts from what was a relatively short (and pathetically conducted) interview on the Today program:
"Now, the answer to the point that you raised about my soon to be former wife is that I have absolutely no idea. I am not responsible for my wife..."
"So I'm not in a position to answer her, but I will tell you this... "
"Well, you know in the modern era, it's not normal to imagine that husbands and wives are the goods and chattels of each other..."

Ane perhaps most damningly:
"I did not know that she had received money from Mr. Zureikat, if she indeed had."

However, the allegation that his final comment refers to, is regarding money that was transferred to his wife's personal account in 2000, quite some time before his separation from her. Is he really saying that he would have known nothing about a $150,000 payment, made from a close personal friend directly into his wife's bank account, at that time, before they had become estranged or separated?

Oh, he knows there was something dodgy going on and he's going to try and let his wife (who I believe has cancer) take the fall for it...

Reply 28

Alewhey

JonathanH

Oh, he knows there was something dodgy going on and he's going to try and let his wife (who I believe has cancer) take the fall for it...

Thanks for your bold prediction. Now how is this for an idea. You can't make a call either way at this point in time. So. Wait. See if anything comes of this. If not, you must assume he was being smeared. If so, then that's that.

I guess if you want to speculate it's up to you, but judging him already is very unfair.

Reply 29

Longshoredrift80

10

Alewhey

Thanks for your bold prediction. Now how is this for an idea. You can't make a call either way at this point in time. So. Wait. See if anything comes of this.

Indeed, I will. I am merely predicting or "speculating", if you will.

Alewhey

If not, you must assume he was being smeared. If so, then that's that.

I completely disagree with this statement. If "not" then there are a multitude of reasons which might exist for the charges not being pursued, several of which I have already outlined previously in this topic. (Can you imagine the political havoc that would be caused if a British MP were found guilty and imprisoned in the US for perjury?)
To simply assert that it must have been because he was "being smeared" and to insist that this is what we all "must assume" in those circumstances, is just nonsensical and is simply you trying to pervert the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" to cover far more wide a subject than it actually does.

Alewhey

I guess if you want to speculate it's up to you, but judging him already is very unfair.

So you admit that there's a difference between speculating and judging.

Reply 30

Chrism

1

[QUOTE="lady_daisychain"]

very true... i say we take the american senators to court!! see how they like a taste of their own medicine..

You can't sue a legislature. Nor can you sue a legislater for anything he/she says in the course of their legislative duties.

Reply 31

Longshoredrift80

10

Chrism

You can't sue a legislature. Nor can you sue a legislater for anything he/she says in the course of their legislative duties.

Allow me, if you will, to guess that her response to you pointing out her basic ignorance of the issue she is talking about, will be the same as her response to me when I pointed out her ignorance of the issue. i.e. "Dude.. do u have to disagree with EVERYTHING i say?!!!!" Because, you know, pointing out the facts of who the issue involves and what can actually be done is merely "disagreeing" with her. I'd call it "correcting" her, if anything. But somehow "Dude.. do u have to correct EVERYTHING i say?!!!!" doesn't sound quite the same, does it?

Reply 32

Alewhey

JonathanH

I completely disagree with this statement. If "not" then there are a multitude of reasons which might exist for the charges not being pursued, several of which I have already outlined previously in this topic. (Can you imagine the political havoc that would be caused if a British MP were found guilty and imprisoned in the US for perjury?)
To simply assert that it must have been because he was "being smeared" and to insist that this is what we all "must assume" in those circumstances, is just nonsensical and is simply you trying to pervert the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" to cover far more wide a subject than it actually does.

What? Innocent until proven guilty - until he is proven of a wrongdoing, we must assume he has not broken the law, agreed? (If not, lets stop this right now). If he has not broken the law, then accusations of him doing so, unless taken to their logical conclusion, must be considered attempted smears- if not that, then what else?

The obvious point I have been trying to aviod stating explicitly is that anyone could accuse anyone of anything, but they would not and should not be taken seriously unless they are willing to back up said claims. To take a recent example, the indictment of DeLay. If Earl has just stood up and said, "DeLay is a lawbreaker", and sat back down, he would rightly have been accused of smearing DeLay, regardless of whether the accusation was true. I might add, all parties, interested or not, would be obliged disregard Earle's accusation in such a situation. This situation is no different.

So you admit that there's a difference between speculating and judging.

Yup. I also think that you might just have already decided one way or another. You did, may I remind you, state "[H]e knows there was something dodgy going on and he's going to try and let his wife (who I believe has cancer) take the fall for it...". Speculation or not, I think you are not being as impartial as you ought.

For the record, I don't know jack about Galloway and don't really care, but people shouldn't just accuse others without substance, and people like you should give those who do no quarter.

Reply 33

DemonDemonic

OP

JonathanH

He's covering his back on the "wife" issue far too much for someone who knows of no wrongdoing... He keeps repeating that he has no responsibility for or any knowledge of anything involving his wife, as if he knows that there are some shady dealings in that area and is making damn sure he gets his story out first and absolves himself of any responsibility.

For example, he is now repeatedly talking about the estranged nature of his relationship with his wife and the fact they are soon to be divorced. Here are some extracts from what was a relatively short (and pathetically conducted) interview on the Today program:
"Now, the answer to the point that you raised about my soon to be former wife is that I have absolutely no idea. I am not responsible for my wife..."
"So I'm not in a position to answer her, but I will tell you this... "
"Well, you know in the modern era, it's not normal to imagine that husbands and wives are the goods and chattels of each other..."

Ane perhaps most damningly:
"I did not know that she had received money from Mr. Zureikat, if she indeed had."

However, the allegation that his final comment refers to, is regarding money that was transferred to his wife's personal account in 2000, quite some time before his separation from her. Is he really saying that he would have known nothing about a $150,000 payment, made from a close personal friend directly into his wife's bank account, at that time, before they had become estranged or separated?

Oh, he knows there was something dodgy going on and he's going to try and let his wife (who I believe has cancer) take the fall for it...

I noticed that aswell isn't it funny that when we was last in americia he didn't mention his wife once, i think he better be careful because i supose they could just put him on a lie decector or something because they use them in americian courts?

Reply 34

Longshoredrift80

10

Alewhey

What? Innocent until proven guilty - until he is proven of a wrongdoing, we must assume he has not broken the law, agreed? (If not, lets stop this right now). If he has not broken the law, then accusations of him doing so, unless taken to their logical conclusion, must be considered attempted smears- if not that, then what else?.

At this stage I must conclude that you are deliberately ignoring what I have repeatedly said. "Innocent until proven guilty" - agreed. However, that does NOT mean that anything said against him is either unsubstantiated or an "attempted smear", the principle simply does not extend that far. He may not yet have not been charged and consequently not found guilty, but you CANNOT hold that to mean that the accusations are either baseless or "smears". There are many reasons why charges may not be pressed, just as there are many reasons a prosecution may fail, despite plenty of evidence.
You cannot assert, in any case, that charges are not pressed because there is no substantiation to them. In this case, as I have mentioned before, there would be severe diplomatic and political implications if charges were brought. Perjury is a criminal offence which carries the potential sentence of a substantial jail term, it is very different to the previous situation when Galloway went to testify in front of the Senate. It is also very different to the Civil Law cases in which Galloway is usually involved. The defendant in a criminal case cannot generally fly in and out of the country on a whim, as Galloway could in the previous situation. The police are also involved in some way in the process if there is a criminal charge. If criminal charges were pressed this would be a completely different ball-game and the Senate are aware of that. As I said before, can you imagine the implications of jailing a British Member of Parliament in America? I'm sure you can.
You are falsely trying to extend the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" to an implication that a lack of charges means that all accusations are just "smear attempts" and have no basis. That is simply not a credible continuation of the principle, and I think you know it.

Alewhey

For the record, I don't know jack about Galloway and don't really care, but people shouldn't just accuse others without substance, and people like you should give those who do no quarter.

And once again, you assert that a lack of a charges up to now would mean that there is a lack of substance to the allegations. That simply does not hold true. In many cases a prosecutor will decide not to prosecute not because he has insubstantial evidence, but based on other factors and considerations. That does not render everything he has said "an attempted smear" or "baseless", it simply means there were factors that led to a decision not to prosecute.

Reply 35

Fusion

20

galloway is 100% genuine..its jus the attempts of the jewish controlled media to mess him up

Reply 36

DemonDemonic

OP

esx77

galloway is 100% genuine..its jus the attempts of the jewish controlled media to f*** him up

Indeed Said like a true "Galloite" "twit"

Reply 37

Longshoredrift80

10

Alewhey

Yup. I also think that you might just have already decided one way or another. You did, may I remind you, state "[H]e knows there was something dodgy going on and he's going to try and let his wife (who I believe has cancer) take the fall for it...". Speculation or not, I think you are not being as impartial as you ought.

As impartial as I ought? I am not a judge. I am free to believe whatever the hell I want, hell, he can be found innocent and I can still believe he's guilty. A hell of a lot of people "know" that OJ Simpson was guilty (including, in reality, the Civil Court which held him liable for about $30million of damages for the deaths), are they not allowed to think that he is guilty simply because he was found innocent of criminal charges?
Was everything said about him unsubstantiated or an "attempted smear" simply because a jury failed to convict him?
Aside from that, this topic asks people to vote on whether they think Galloway is guilty or innocent, a crook or not. It is not meant to be an impartial vote, otherwise everyone would be obligated to vote "innocent" based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" which would render the poll, and the thread, pretty pointless. However, we are debating opinions and speculation, there is no requirement of impartiality.

Reply 38

Person

13

Northumbrian might have gotten close enough to see him take back-handers, but that's about it

Are you suggesting I have a fixation with George Galloway's rear?

He never "answered the charge" last time, he absolutely ignored the charge and went on about other things. As I said, "he avoided the questions like an anorexic avoids pies".

Total and utter *****. The only question he didn't answer was whether he would be concerned if he learned that some of Zureikat's donations were illegal kick backs. That had **** all to do whether he himself received any favours.

he was a big fat stupid idiot

He is NOT fat!

Oh, he knows there was something dodgy going on and he's going to try and let his wife (who I believe has cancer) take the fall for it...

Why has it taken them *this* long to look into her bank account? What a crock of ****.

Reply 39

Longshoredrift80

10

Northumbrian

Total and utter *****. The only question he didn't answer was whether he would be concerned if he learned that some of Zureikat's donations were illegal kick backs. That had **** all to do whether he himself received any favours.

No, actually. The Senators levelled many charges and evidence at Galloway, hardly any of which received straight and honest answers, all of which were used merely as an excuse to launch off on his own demented tirades. Check out some of the transcript, it was a joke the way he ignored the actual questions and charges and went on about what he wanted to.

Northumbrian

Why has it taken them *this* long to look into her bank account? What a crock of ****.

Because there were and are millions of documents to go through?
Because key witnesses needed to be questioned?
Because evidence needed to be compiled?
If they had done this faster, you'd be complaining that they couldn't possibly have found and collated all the documents and evidence in such a short time. You'll find any excuse and a complaint, whatever the circumstances, so why should we even listen to you?
In relaity, it hasn't taken "long" at all, if you think about it, for them to find this sort of evidence in the mess that was post-invasion Iraq.

Does loving a traitorous criminal make you one as well? I think it should.

Is Galloway A Crook?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you