# Sean Hannity and Oliver North Head Military Charity Mired In Scandal



## Madeline (Feb 20, 2011)

> When conservative commentators begin eating their own, you know that something is up.
> 
> Debbie Schlussel is a reasonably well-known conservative commentator with a large radio and online following.  While I have always found her to be over the top  particularly with her anti-Muslim rhetoric  she certainly has the respect of the conservative community. So when she broke a story a few days ago accusing Sean Hannitys charity of being a scam, this naturally got my attention.
> 
> ...



Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - True/Slant

Oliver North involved in something shady?  Who could have predicted *that*?


----------



## asterism (Feb 20, 2011)

Worth watching.  This is a situation where anyone who puts themselves out there like that must prove their innocence.  Hannity needs to open up all the books to the public.


----------



## rdean (Feb 20, 2011)

asterism said:


> Worth watching.  This is a situation where anyone who puts themselves out there like that must prove their innocence.  Hannity needs to open up all the books to the public.



He's not gonna do it.  It's a mystery to me why the Republican base thinks their "idols" care anything about them.  At least when Obama passed along tax breaks for the rich, it was because they were holding millions of unemployed hostage.

As long as Hannity or any other right wingers don't "break the law", they are more than willing to screw over as many Americans as possible.  Check out what right wingers on this very board say.  The "values" have spread through the entire party, like a festering rot.


----------



## California Girl (Feb 20, 2011)

Color me shocked. A lefty dissing a conservative. I'm dumbfounded. 

FYI: When there is actual, hard evidence of wrongdoing, I'll happily condemn Hannity - Hannity is an ass... but a left winger writing a bullshit piece about a conservative does not make it fact. Facts are my friends. They are clearly a foreign concept to Mad-o-lyin.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 20, 2011)

OMG, not this shit AGAIN.

Is there anything a lefty WON'T ATTACK, now it's Charities.


----------



## geauxtohell (Feb 20, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Color me shocked. A lefty dissing a conservative. I'm dumbfounded.
> 
> FYI: When there is actual, hard evidence of wrongdoing, I'll happily condemn Hannity - Hannity is an ass... but a left winger writing a bullshit piece about a conservative does not make it fact. Facts are my friends. They are clearly a foreign concept to Mad-o-lyin.



Schlussel is hardly a liberal.  Frankly, she comes across as a vindictive harpy that is trying to take out the knees of a perceived competitor.  Also, check the date on this.  It's almost a year old.  This isn't breaking news and I think due diligence was done afterwords and ruled "no foul".

I wouldn't doubt if the majority of the "money" wasn't going to the intended source.  Hannity is a douche like that.  However, under law, only a small percentage of the $ needs to go to charity to be called a charity event.

Either way, even without money involved, that chicken-shit Sean Hannity has been milking other men and women's honorable service to promote his own show for a long time.

Did I mention that he's a douche?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 20, 2011)

This accusation has been made before and I don't believe anything was ever made of it.  

Regarding Oliver North, I don't know why he is such a hero to conservatives.  The guy was guilty as sin in the Iran Contra scandal.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> > When conservative commentators begin eating their own, you know that something is up.
> >
> > Debbie Schlussel is a reasonably well-known conservative commentator with a large radio and online following.  While I have always found her to be over the top  particularly with her anti-Muslim rhetoric  she certainly has the respect of the conservative community. So when she broke a story a few days ago accusing Sean Hannitys charity of being a scam, this naturally got my attention.
> >
> ...



has anythiing new surfaced because this is a year old....(?)


----------



## California Girl (Feb 20, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > When conservative commentators begin eating their own, you know that something is up.
> ...



It takes Mad-o-lyin a while to catch up with the real world.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 20, 2011)

Follow MeRick Ungar
The Policy PageMy ProfileMy Headline GrabsMy RSS Feed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar. 20 2010 -


gotta have that dose of hate no matter how old I guess.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> > When conservative commentators begin eating their own, you know that something is up.
> >
> > Debbie Schlussel is a reasonably well-known conservative commentator with a large radio and online following.  While I have always found her to be over the top  particularly with her anti-Muslim rhetoric  she certainly has the respect of the conservative community. So when she broke a story a few days ago accusing Sean Hannitys charity of being a scam, this naturally got my attention.
> >
> ...


This scam was exposed many years ago and ignored by the sheep. It's just like traitor North's Contra scam. Most of the money went into North's Swiss account and very little went to the Contras.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 20, 2011)

asterism said:


> Worth watching.  This is a situation where anyone who puts themselves out there like that must prove their innocence.  Hannity needs to open up all the books to the public.


They already have:
Charity Navigator Rating - Freedom Alliance
From the link:


> Note that Schlussel does not accuse Hannity or the charity of doing anything illegal.


So the problem with the charity is what again?


----------



## Madeline (Feb 20, 2011)

Mea culpa for not seeing the piece was somewhat old.

As for the validity of the allegations....any tax exempt organization in the US has to file an informational return with the IRS and make a copy of that available to any taxpayer.   I cannot imagine that a charity which distributes as little as 7% of donations to its intended targets is legal....mayhaps it is.  If people like CG could read, they would know such things.

It is certainly not ethical to solicit donations for severely wounded veterans and the children of the fallen and then spend the money on lavish accommodations for Hannity's people, at least not in the eyes of *this*  liberal.


----------



## California Girl (Feb 20, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Follow MeRick Ungar
> The Policy PageMy ProfileMy Headline GrabsMy RSS Feed
> 
> 
> ...



Check the guy's profile page:

Who I admire: Barack Obama.

What makes my teeth itch: Sarah Palin.


Yep, there's a balanced, unbiased view..... Sometimes I wonder if Mad-o-lyin has some problem that stops her from asking really basic questions about what she reads. Gawd Almighty, that is one dumb woman.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> This accusation has been made before and I don't believe anything was ever made of it.
> 
> Regarding Oliver North,* I don't know why he is such a hero to conservatives.  The guy was guilty as sin in the Iran Contra scandal.*


That's exactly why he's a hero to the CON$ervative Brotherhood.


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Oliver North involved in something shady?  Who could have predicted *that*?



Oliver North is a traitor who should be in prison.

And stripped of all rank and retirement benefits.

As an Officer he had sworn to Defend the Constitution.

Yet, he knowingly and criminally circumvented it and dishonored his uniform.

Amazingly, many misguided Americans hail him as a hero and a patriot.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 20, 2011)

Remember when Jesse Jackson used money to buy his mistress a home from the Rainbow/Push coalition money?

Yeah, you could say Hannity's charity uses too much money for overhead but I'd say the same about most charites, including Joe Kennedy's heating oil for the poor charity.

I'm not defending Sean Hannity, I don't watch his how or listen to his radio program, but when you look at the bottom line, that's how *most* charities operate.


----------



## California Girl (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Mea culpa for not seeing the piece was somewhat old.
> 
> As for the validity of the allegations....any tax exempt organization in the US has to file an informational return with the IRS and make a copy of that available to any taxpayer.   I cannot imagine that a charity which distributes as little as 7% of donations to its intended targets is legal....mayhaps it is.  If people like CG could read, they would know such things.
> 
> It is certainly not ethical to solicit donations for severely wounded veterans and the children of the fallen and then spend the money on lavish accommodations for Hannity's people, at least not in the eyes of *this*  liberal.



CG prefers to source from facts, not fiction.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 20, 2011)

Sunni Man said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Oliver North involved in something shady?  Who could have predicted *that*?
> ...


We're kinda' getting off topic here but I figure Ollie was just a fall guy. Do you really think a Lt.Col. could have run the Iran Contra affair all by himself?

Neither do I.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 20, 2011)

Gotta love the BACKBEDDLING..

ok, I was wrong, BUT still.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 20, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Remember when Jesse Jackson used money to buy his mistress a home from the Rainbow/Push coalition money?
> 
> Yeah, you could say Hannity's charity uses too much money for overhead but I'd say the same about most charites, including Joe Kennedy's heating oil for the poor charity.
> 
> I'm not defending Sean Hannity, I don't watch his how or listen to his radio program, but when you look at the bottom line, that's how *most* charities operate.



Far too many, certainly.  There are services you can use to vet your charities before donating, or you can give locally, where you can see the money at work.

Either one is a better idea than just choosing emotionally -- even the United Way has had problems similar (not in degree, but in kind) to this.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 20, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Nope.  I figured Reagan was involved up to his ears and North perjured himself to shield him.

I thought that is what everyone believed/knew.


----------



## blu (Feb 20, 2011)

THIS HAS BEEN POSTED FOR MONTHS AND ITS BULLSHIT...

the charity is for KIDS OF SOLDIERS ... how many soldiers in iraq/afgh do you think have kids going to college????!?@#?!@#? get back to me in 17 years when the funds will be used


----------



## Trajan (Feb 20, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



good point. 

one can vilify him or take a look at the fact that we do similar things , well almost routinely. its geo-politics, frankly in that perspective it was  win win...but if someone wants to kick the dog, they should be  kicking several.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 20, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Gotta love the BACKBEDDLING..
> 
> ok, I was wrong, BUT still.



How was I wrong, Stephanie?  Was the charity later found to be legitimate?

No?

Then STFU.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



well sorta,but in the end he took one for the team.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 20, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



Not my team.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta love the BACKBEDDLING..
> ...



my my, you do get TESTY when shown you made a fool of yourself.
tsk tsk


----------



## Trajan (Feb 20, 2011)

Sunni Man said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Oliver North involved in something shady?  Who could have predicted *that*?
> ...



oh please......


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


*Nor Mine*


----------



## California Girl (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta love the BACKBEDDLING..
> ...



The funds haven't been distributed.... because they were never meant to be distributed immediately. They are held in trust until the kids of the soldiers need the money to go to college. True story. 

However, that fact - and it is a fact - doesn't get in the way of idiots with an agenda using it as a stick to beat up Hannity. 

Stupid partisan hacks stoop to any depth - even destroy a decent charity - for political gain. Disgusting.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 20, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Still awaiting new facts that would exonerate this charity, Stephanie.

Unless you just wanna post emoticons as argument?


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...




not worth my time. 
but carry on


----------



## blu (Feb 20, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...




well obviously our soldiers create super babies who go to college at 3!


----------



## blu (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



just put stephanie on ignore


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 20, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> This accusation has been made before and I don't believe anything was ever made of it.
> 
> Regarding Oliver North, I don't know why he is such a hero to conservatives.  The guy was guilty as sin in the Iran Contra scandal.



Yepper, I could only come to 2 possibilities with North.  Either he was a liar or a fool.  Neither type would ever be a hero to me.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 20, 2011)

blu said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...





waaaaa


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > This accusation has been made before and I don't believe anything was ever made of it.
> ...


Well, he's certainly no fool! 

The bulk of the Iran-Contra money went into his Swiss bank account, and he knew which documents to smuggle out in his girlfriend's crotch, rather than shred, to force Reagan and company to protect him rather than make him their "loose cannon" fall guy.


----------



## California Girl (Feb 20, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



It appears that Mad-o-lyin needs to hear it from you, so just explain to her what a 'trust fund' is. The money raised by this particular charity is a 'trust'. It is money held in 'trust' for the children of servicemen killed in current military action. When those children reach college age, they will be able to apply for - and receive - money to help pay for their education. It's not rocket science.... but apparently it is over the intellectual pay grade of Mad-o-lyin. 

The charity is a trust. The money will be there when the children need it. As blu points out.... 3 year olds are not ordinarily college ready.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



actually maddie, yes your team, my team, etc.


----------



## asterism (Feb 20, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



My original point still stands.  Assuming that is indeed the case it needs to be aired publicly.  Not simply following the law, but complete open books.  I hold charities to which I contribute to a much higher standard than the law and Hannity has shown to be less than transparent.  He initially said that he was going to prove that as much money as possible went to the scholarship funds and that neither he nor his fellow organizers would make a dime from this.

He hasn't demonstrated that yet.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 20, 2011)

Sunni Man said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



oh for god sakes....

let me ask you a question; how do you feel about dealing with heroin growers and producers?


----------



## Liability (Feb 20, 2011)

The money collected is largely set-aside for FUTURE use -- think scholarships -- and, therefore, it is a simple mathematical truth that presently more money is collected than disseminated.

So fucking what?

It's hard to collect charitable contributions for future scholarships today and have that money available for that intended purpose if you also fucking SPEND it today.

This non-story got beat to shit the LAST time it was trumpeted as some kind of proof that Hannity is a lowlife prick.  He might not be the best voice of present day conservatism, but there's still not a single credible shred of evidence that he's a conniving thief of some sort.

The OP is basically bogus.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



"his" account, yea, I guess you can say that,in that he opened them and kept the funds moving in and out,  but if you are inferring he used it for his own ends, outside an alarm system for his home, can you link to substantive evidence showing such please?


----------



## whitehall (Feb 20, 2011)

Debbie Schlussel can hardly be considered "a reasonably wellknown conservative commentator" she is a nut case who lashes out at people without any evidence. She called journalist Jill Carroll who was abducted in Iraq "anti-American" and she said that Carroll "hated Israel" without offering any evidence. Recently she said reporter Lara Logan "deserved to be sexually assaulted" in Egypt. Schlussel was defeated in 199o when she ran for state representative in Mich and she lashed out at her opponent's family and the judge who certified the ballots. For some reason she continually attacks the Muslem population of Dearborn Mich.  Lately it seems she is on the attack at what she calls "faux-conservatives". She should stick to being a film critic because she isn't qualified to do anything else.


----------



## California Girl (Feb 20, 2011)

asterism said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I agree. I think ALL charities should have an open book policy. But, the fact remains, this charity was always meant to be a long term investment. It was not set up to distribute funds immediately..... because they are trying to ensure that the kids of dead servicemen get access to college. I personally think that's a great cause. 

I would be less than impressed if it was proved that Hannity or North or anyone else used money inappropriately but - until that is proven - it remains speculation.... and speculation from a biased source is not something I credit as worthy of concern.


----------



## Sarah G (Feb 20, 2011)

Madeline said:


> > When conservative commentators begin eating their own, you know that something is up.
> >
> > Debbie Schlussel is a reasonably well-known conservative commentator with a large radio and online following.  While I have always found her to be over the top  particularly with her anti-Muslim rhetoric  she certainly has the respect of the conservative community. So when she broke a story a few days ago accusing Sean Hannitys charity of being a scam, this naturally got my attention.
> >
> ...



Who knew?  They're both such iconic philanthropists...


----------



## Liability (Feb 20, 2011)

Smarmy self-serving commentary from the usual liberoidal suspects notwithstanding, there's STILL not a single shred of credible evidence that Hannity has done ANYTHING improper or "untoward" relative to this charity.

I would like to see liberals here acknowledge that there is nothing even especially suspicious about holding the funds collected -- and possibly investing them to increase their worth over time until the day comes when the scholarship requests come in.  (Actually, now that I think about it, there was a voice of objectivity from a liberal IN this very thread; but I won't mention his name since he might get "tainted" in the eyes of the less objective liberals if *I* am the one giving him kudos.   )


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 20, 2011)

The maazing thing abtou the right and ollie is how after his release/pardon how that churches paid him to speak to their congregations.

A traitor to america  being paid by churches...


----------



## whitehall (Feb 20, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > When conservative commentators begin eating their own, you know that something is up.
> ...



So, the left has another issue to camouflage their failed agenda? Ho-hum. First of all Schlussel is no conservative. She is either a nut case or a media hog. Why else would she say that the female reporter "deserved to be sexually assaulted" in Egypt. Why aren't womens groups outraged? Because she is a fellow traveler? So Hannity and North have (only) raised $800,000 for scholorships for Military families> How much has Schlussel or any of the other critics raised ?


----------



## Liability (Feb 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> The maazing thing abtou the right and ollie is how after his release/pardon how that churches paid him to speak to their congregations.
> 
> A traitor to america  being paid by churches...



It's maazing that someone of your intellectual prowess 

can even breathe.

Ollie might have been guilty of violating some laws for his behavior in the Iran Contra "scandal."  But that hardly makes him a "traitor" in a world where words have actual meaning.  

The entire story is actually interesting on the level of the proper role of the Legislative versus the Executive Branch when it comes to foreign "affairs."  

There is a fairly one-sided presentation of the affair found here:  The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On
But despite its obvious bias, it is still a useful point of departure for discussing what actually happened.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 20, 2011)

Liability said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > The maazing thing abtou the right and ollie is how after his release/pardon how that churches paid him to speak to their congregations.
> ...



Dealing weapons to an avowed enemy of the USA?
Kinda sounds like treason to me.


----------



## Liability (Feb 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Telling HALF the story sounds like cowardice from you.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

Trajan said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


The "Enterprise" money was in swiss accounts controlled by Hakim, Secord and North. The money not spent on the Contras belonged to the "Enterprise"/Hakim, Secord and North. None of the millions in the Swiss accounts was returned to the American people after the scam was exposed, so yes they were "his" accounts along with "his" partners in crime.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


you do undeerstand the dealing of those weapons was a multipurpose thing
first, they were scheduled to be decommissioned by the Israeli government and replaced with new ones, and it was to give a balance to Iran in its war against Iraq(Saddam) so that neither side would win

and the money was used to fund the freedom fighters in Nicaragua


----------



## GStarz (Feb 20, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Color me shocked. A lefty dissing a conservative. I'm dumbfounded.
> 
> FYI: When there is actual, hard evidence of wrongdoing, I'll happily condemn Hannity - Hannity is an ass... but a left winger writing a bullshit piece about a conservative does not make it fact. Facts are my friends. They are clearly a foreign concept to Mad-o-lyin.



_That's_ how it needs to be said! Well done!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

blu said:


> THIS HAS BEEN POSTED FOR MONTHS AND ITS BULLSHIT...
> 
> the charity is for KIDS OF SOLDIERS ... how many soldiers in iraq/afgh do you think have kids going to college????!?@#?!@#? *get back to me in 17 years when the funds will be used*


A perfect example of what passes for "logic" in the CON$ervative Brotherhood. No soldiers had any children of any age before they went to war, they only had babies after going to war, therefore there would be no need to pay out money for school for at least 17 years.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > THIS HAS BEEN POSTED FOR MONTHS AND ITS BULLSHIT...
> ...


dipshit, blu isnt a conservative


----------



## California Girl (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > THIS HAS BEEN POSTED FOR MONTHS AND ITS BULLSHIT...
> ...



That was actually the point of the charity. To invest money for the kids NOW to help them in the future. That is conservative logic. 

Fucking idiot.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 20, 2011)

California Girl said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


edthemoron has no grasp of reality


----------



## Trajan (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




thats not  what you inferred I think, but  thanks for the clarification,  I'll accept that and so what? and you are inferring again, so how many millions were are there? did he use it for himself? Where did it go?are you inferring anything here?


----------



## Trajan (Feb 20, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




and buy hostages back...


----------



## GStarz (Feb 20, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I agree. It's really had to tell sometimes whether some of these liberals are just playing dumb as an excuse to spin the facts and continue to influence some degree of a dwindling minority, or whether they really are dumb-as-a-fucking-post stupid.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

California Girl said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


There are children of soldiers going to school NOW but the fund is paying very little towards their education. Only token payments are made to qualify as a charity. Each year the funds keep growing but the payments continue to lag. This phony charity is a scam based on North's Iran-Contra scam model. 

Freedom Alliance knows it's a scam which is why they refuse to open its books to the better Business Bureau. Of course, DumbCon will accuse the BBB of being a Liberal hack organization. 

Charity Review of Freedom Alliance
*Charity Contact Information*
                                                                      Name:                     Freedom Alliance                                                           Address:                     22570 Markey Court                                                                                 Dulles, VA 20166-6919                                                           Phone:                     703-444-7940                                                           Web Address:                     www.freedomalliance.org

*BBB Wise Giving Alliance Comment*


                                            Despite written BBB Wise Giving Alliance requests  in the past year, this organization either has not responded to Alliance  requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to  the Alliance&#8217;s Standards for Charity Accountability. * While  participation in the Alliance&#8217;s charity review efforts is voluntary, the  Alliance believes that  failure to participate may demonstrate a lack  of commitment to transparency.*


----------



## GStarz (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I love it when liberals debate important, in-depth issues with childish words like "Dumbcon" and animated smiley faces. That's about the intellectual height of the rebuttal.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

Trajan said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


According to Secord's Iran-Contra testimony there was at least $10 million that was not given to the Contras which he claims belongs to the "Enterprise."


----------



## California Girl (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Again, you clearly do not understand how trust funds operate. I do. 

College. Not school. College education.... specifically..... to give them an opportunity that they may not otherwise have had. The charity wasn't designed to pay for kindergarten. Again.... college. Get it? Higher education. Further education. College.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

GStarz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


I love it when the CON$ervative Brotherhood ignores their fellow traveler, DumbCon, modifying my screen name to edthemoron, but has a shit fit, in order to deflect from the fact that the Freedom Alliance phony charity is hiding from the BBB, when I modify his screen name in return.


----------



## Mr Natural (Feb 20, 2011)

Not surprising at all.

You put a right-wing, money-grubbing conservative asshole next to to big pile of money and sooner or later the greedy motherfucker's going to want to dip his beak and get his piece of the action.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

California Girl said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


An average of a lousy $2,943/year/student does not pay for a college education. It is a scam and that is why they hide from the BBB.

According to its *2006 tax returns*,  Freedom Alliance reported revenue of $10, 822, 785, but only  $397,900or a beyond-measly 3.68%of that was given to the children of  fallen troops as scholarships or as aid to severely injured soldiers.

That year, while fat-cat consultants and expenses took millions of  Freedom Alliances money, seriously wounded troops to whom Freedom  Alliance donated received a pathetic average of $785 each and the  college student kids of the fallen got a paltry average of $2,943 toward  tuition. Yes, out of millions raised that year by Sean Hannity at his  Freedom Concerts, only $309,000 was given out in scholarships to 105  students, and only $110,703.82 was given to the wounded soldiers.

Freedom Alliances *2007 tax returns* arent much better. Out of  $12,459,317 it raised that year, only $895,347or just 7%went to  seriously wounded troops and scholarships for fallen troops. 53% went to  expenses, including $1,464,627 in postage and $1,151,428 in printing.  $604,995 went to professional fees and consultants. Out of millions  paid for Freedom Concert tickets and raised in fundraisers by Hannity  listeners, only $596,500 went to college scholarships for soldiers who  died in battle, and only $299,897 went to horribly injured troops. 208  student children of the fallen got an average of $2,868 apiece for  tuition, though many got only $1,000 or less. 382 soldiers with serious  injuries got an average of $785 each.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 20, 2011)

Trajan said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


yup, my list wasnt all inclusive


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> GStarz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


edthemoron you started doing that before i did
i figured you liked it being done to you since YOU did it to everyone else and cant even spell "conservative" properly
grow the fuck up if you want to get better than what you have been giving


----------



## GStarz (Feb 20, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > GStarz said:
> ...



There is a distinction here: _Ed_ used his debating style against the issue, _Diver_ responded in kind against _Ed_. _Ed struck first_ using an intellectually dishonest debating method against the _subject_, Diver _mocked Ed for it afterward_. *Diver wins*, Ed's a loser.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > GStarz said:
> ...


You pathological liar! You changed my screen name, post 60, before I changed yours, post 64. And I'm not the one complaining about it, I merely pointed out that you changed mine when one of your hypocritical fellow travelers whined about it.

And you are STILL deflecting from the fact that the Freedom Alliance phony charity is hiding from the BBB.


----------



## California Girl (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I'm not defending the charity. I'm defending the principle behind it. Two completely different things.... unless you're an idiot. 

I always have issues with charities.... many of them start off well intentioned and, through bad or incompetent management, end up with people siphoning off money or not controlling costs properly.... the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. However, this is over a year old and there is still nothing to prove any allegation of wrong-doing.... but, you don't let lack of evidence get in your way of the bullshit.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

GStarz said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Only to a CON$ervative does post 60 come BEFORE post 64.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


i'm not talking about in THIS thread, dipshit
you started out with that crap when you got here


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> GStarz said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


you are a fucking idiot


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


BULLSHIT!

Prove it. You won't because you know you are lying, but it is always fun to watch you make excuses.


----------



## Rozman (Feb 20, 2011)

Big head Ed Schultz was nearly orgasmic when he covered this story about a year ago.He stirred up some crap that went no where.I haven't heard anything new regarding this matter.If some one has a more recent story about these same issues I would love to see them.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


you have made very FEW posts where you DONT do it, liar


----------



## Madeline (Feb 20, 2011)

Assuming Freedom Alliance is a calendar year exempt organization, its next informational filing is due at the IRS May 15, 2011.  Look for stories about the abuses at this charity -- if they have not been corrected -- to hit the news shortly afterwards.


----------



## blu (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



the fund is for college not primary school


----------



## blu (Feb 20, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > THIS HAS BEEN POSTED FOR MONTHS AND ITS BULLSHIT...
> ...



the fund is for college not primary school


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2011)

blu said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


And why wouldn't the soldiers have college age children now?
The fact remains, the college age children at this time are not getting enough money to pay for college. They are getting an average of less than $3,000 per year while the "charity" takes in over $10 million each year. It's an obvious scam.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 20, 2011)

A question.  Has Ollie North worked a real job since he left the military?  Or does he just run around like Jessie Jackson running his mouth and living off the production of others?


----------



## rdean (Feb 20, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Color me shocked. A lefty dissing a conservative. I'm dumbfounded.
> 
> FYI: When there is actual, hard evidence of wrongdoing, I'll happily condemn Hannity - Hannity is an ass... but a left winger writing a bullshit piece about a conservative does not make it fact. Facts are my friends. They are clearly a foreign concept to Mad-o-lyin.



Depends on how you define "wrongdoing".  One example is "breaking the law".  Most Republicans, yourself included, feel that as long as you didn't break the law and you were able to scam as much money as possible, in any way possible, then it's "OK".

It's like John Boehner passing out bribes on the House Floor and being videotaped doing it.  It's not illegal, but it's unethical.  Republicans and others such as yourself stop at "It's not illegal".  Screw ethics.  The right winger doesn't know what that is, in fact, they don't even care.  How do we know?  You guys vote for him.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 21, 2011)

rdean said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Color me shocked. A lefty dissing a conservative. I'm dumbfounded.
> ...


liar


----------



## Madeline (Feb 21, 2011)

Boehner is from Ohio.  He is not my rep, but I might have voted for him......so I'll take that hit.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 21, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Color me shocked. *A lefty dissing a conservative*. I'm dumbfounded.
> 
> FYI: When there is actual, hard evidence of wrongdoing, I'll happily condemn Hannity - Hannity is an ass... but a left winger writing a bullshit piece about a conservative does not make it fact. Facts are my friends. They are clearly a foreign concept to Mad-o-lyin.



You should have read more carefully:

*"Debbie Schlussel is a reasonably well-known conservative commentator"*


----------



## editec (Feb 21, 2011)

Wonder if Ollie will be getting a over on these crimes, too?



> *Oliver North* -  He was *indicted on sixteen felony counts* and on May 4, 1989, he was *convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents* (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was *sentenced* by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, *to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.* *His conviction was later overturned. *


 
source


----------



## Liability (Feb 21, 2011)

editec said:


> Wonder if Ollie will be getting a over on these crimes, too?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A conviction reversed on appeal is a nullity.  Exactly the same as though there had never been a conviction.  Exactly.  It returns the accused to the status he had before the trial.  In short, it returned Col. North to the status of a person who is *presumed in the eyes of the law to be innocent.*  His presumption of innocence is intact to this very day.  And since there was never a re-trial (and no longer can be one), Ollie is innocent.

Too bad the government which you libbies cherish oh so very much prosecuted him in a manner that violated his Constitutional rights.  Damn.  You must just be pissed off at the Government you cherish beyond measure.  And damn, but that whole Constitutional protections thing being applied even to guys like Ollie, whom you hate, must rankle your peevish little minds.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2011)

Liability said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder if Ollie will be getting a over on these crimes, too?
> ...


BULLSHIT!!!

Traitor North was found GUILTY of felonies. He is a CONVICTED felon. He was found by the Extreme Court to be IMMUNE from prosecution, not INNOCENT of the felonies he was convicted of. As a CONVICTED felon he no longer has the presumption of innocence. He is a convicted felon immune from prosecution.


----------



## Liability (Feb 21, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...




No.  Your pissing, moaning, groaning, wailing, gnashing of teeth and foot stomping doesn't change anything.   Dry your eyes and change your soiled panties.

A reversed conviction *is* no longer a conviction at all.  

The fact of a reversal DOES return a person to the _status quo ante_, whether you like that absolutely correctly stated legal fact or not.

Your petulant but silly claim that Col North was a "traitor" is even more ridiculous.

He has no criminal record at all.  And the fact that you cannot digest this truth is merely additional evidence that you don't know what you talk about and that your petty little hatreds are more important to you than facts.

I find that funny.  You I find pathetic, of course.  But your arrogant ignorance (loudly trumpeted as it tends to be) is a rip.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 21, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


wrong again, you fucking LIAR

the conviction were VACATED
look it up


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 21, 2011)

editec said:


> Wonder if Ollie will be getting a over on these crimes, too?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


they were NOT "over turned" they were VACATED
and yes, there is a difference


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 21, 2011)

Liability said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


these werent just reversed, they were vacated, maybe you can explain the difference to edthemoron in words he might understand


----------



## Liability (Feb 21, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The *legal effect of a reversal* of a conviction *is* *to vacate* that conviction.  It becomes void.  A nullity.  At the instant that happens, the person is restored to his _status quo ante_:  i.e., he once again is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

This isn't a controversial notion, either.    It is ancient stuff.   Edthesickdick is simply too vastly ignorant to grasp it.

After a conviction, a person _can_ often be sent back to the trial court for RE-trial.  That wouldn't happen if he was already deemed "convicted."  A conviction erases the presumption of innocence.  But upon a re-trial, the accused once again HAS the presumption.  Why?  Because he has been RETURNED to the status he had prior to the previous trial.

Edthesickdick cannot be tracking this part of the discussion.  It is wrecking his universe.  

Of course, _sometimes_ the case cannot be sent back for a retrial.  Sometimes, the basis for the reversal was an error that had permitted invalidly obtained evidence to be used, for example.  And if the government cannot prosecute the accused without that evidence, and it has just been ruled to be inadmissible, then the government will be unable to try the defendant.  Oops.  IF he has a presumption of innocence and cannot be tried ever again, then nothing can remove that presumption of innocence and that means -- he not only has no criminal conviction, but _can never be_ convicted.  His presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law will be inviolate forever.

Felons cannot run for office (although they can petition to have their rights restored in some cases) in Virginia.  After his conviction got reversed, Ollie did run for the U.S. Senate.  He lost the race.  But he was legally allowed to run.  Edthesickdick will be unable to appreciate the import of that historical fact.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2011)

Liability said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Traitor North's conviction was DISMISSED not because he was innocent, but because he was IMMUNIZED. He could not be retried because he was IMMUNIZED. His conviction was DISMISSED, not reversed.
If Traitor North gave up his IMMUNITY he could have been tried and convicted yet again.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 21, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


wrong dipshit
it was VACATED

look it up you fucking idiot


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


It was DISMISSED, 

Why don't YOU look it up.

The conviction was vacated FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS!!!!!
The conviction could have still stood up after the Appeals Court decision if  Walsh could then prove in court that none of the witnesses who testified  before the grand jury at Traitor North's trial were influenced by his IMMUNIZED  testimony. Walsh tried to do this, but Traitor North's co conspirator Robert McFarlane, who was Traitor North's boss as the national security  adviser at the White House, covered North's traitorous ass  by then testifying in the review of the trial  record that watching Traitor North before the committees affected his  trial testimony. Judge Gerhard Gesell then had no option but to dismiss the conviction. Traitor North was IMMUNE, not innocent!!!!!

Walsh Iran / Contra Report - Summary of Prosecutions
Oliver L. North -- Indicted March 16, 1988, on 16 felony counts.  After standing trial on 12, *North was convicted May 4, 1989 of three charges*:  accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines and 1,200 hours community service.  A three-judge appeals panel on July 20, 1990, *vacated North's conviction for further proceedings* to determine whether his immunized testimony influenced witnesses in the trial.  The Supreme Court declined to review the case. * Judge Gesell dismissed the case September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue,* on the motion of Independent Counsel.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


the fuck it was, asshole

you fucking idiot, you even highlighted it and got it WRONG


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Even after capitalizing it in one place and underlining it in another you STILL got it WRONG.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


thats not talking about the conviction you fucking moron
that was talking about if he could be TRIED AGAIN
you are a complete fucking moronic idiot


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


No it wasn't!!!! It had NOTHING to do with a retrial!!!! It was all about what constituted IMMUNIZED TESTIMONY!!!!! If co conspirator McFarlane didn't cover Traitor North's lying ass, the convictions would have stood.

Walsh Iran / Contra Report - Chapter 2 United States v. Oliver L. North
     The North Appeal   

     North appealed his convictions on all three counts on a variety of grounds.  North's most serious *appeals issues related to Judge Gesell's application of the Kastigar decision in keeping North's trial free of taint from his immunized congressional testimony *and the application of the Classified Information Procedures Act during the trial.   
     The appeals were argued at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on February 6, 1990.  The court ruled on July 20, 1990.    
     By a 2-1 vote, the Appeals Court set aside North's convictions.  The divided court ruled that Judge Gesell erred in failing to hold a full hearing as required by Kastigar to *ensure that the prosecution witnesses made no use of North's immunized congressional testimony. 
*

     The Court of Appeals disagreed sharply with the Independent Counsel and Judge Gesell's definition of ``use'' under the federal use-immunity statute.  *The Court of Appeals determined that the statute, as interpreted in Kastigar, prevented ``evidentiary'' uses of immunized testimony including ``the use of immunized testimony by witnesses to refresh their memories, or otherwise to focus their thoughts, organize their testimony, or alter their prior or contemporaneous statements.* . . .''  The court observed that Judge Gesell never inquired into these uses of immunized testimony, and it held that warnings to witnesses not to testify to anything  they did not know or recall first-hand did not insure against such uses.

     The Court of Appeals did not reject Judge Gesell's Kastigar rulings in their entirety.  The court upheld his determination that Independent Counsel did not present any of North's *immunized testimony* to the Grand Jury or trial jury.  The court also affirmed the District Court's holdings that Independent Counsel did not use the* immunized testimony* to guide its prosecutorial or trial decisions, and that Independent Counsel had proven untainted leads to all of its witnesses.   
     Nevertheless,* the court remanded all three convictions to the District Court for a ``witness-by-witness [and,] if necessary . . . line-by-line and item by item'' inquiry into the content as well as the sources of grand jury and trial witness testimony.*

 Independent Counsel decided to return for additional Kastigar hearings in Judge Gesell's court, as prescribed by the Court of Appeals.*  In two days of remand hearings, McFarlane testified that his trial testimony was ``colored'' by, and that he was deeply affected by, North's immunized congressional testimony.*


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


no shit, dipshit
but North's conviction were VACATED
just as i said, not overturned


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

and once again all you fucking do is copy and paste and dont have a fucking clue what you are actually talking about


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 22, 2011)

Madeline said:


> > When conservative commentators begin eating their own, you know that something is up.
> >
> > Debbie Schlussel is a reasonably well-known conservative commentator with a large radio and online following.  While I have always found her to be over the top  particularly with her anti-Muslim rhetoric  she certainly has the respect of the conservative community. So when she broke a story a few days ago accusing Sean Hannitys charity of being a scam, this naturally got my attention.
> >
> ...



Maddie, you need to dig a little deeper, it's not that hard...

There is no evidence of any impropriety on Hannity (BTW he has been exonerated on the expenses, he pays his own way) or on North....

Charity Navigator shows 2008 assets in excess of $19MILL, not to shabby at all....

This is pure partisan hyperbole, I learned a long time ago, whats important is to give, it's not for me to judge what they do with it, God knows my heart, the rest will take care of itself...


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
In those further proceedings McFarlane claimed that North's IMMUNIZED testimony refreshed his memory and the case was DISMISSED over the IMMUNITY issue, not because North was innocent. There was enough evidence to convict the felon North, but he was found to be IMMUNE.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


no shit moron
VACATED MEANS VACATED
dipshit
then the case to see if they could RETRY was dismissed
thus there were NO CONVICTIONS

damn you are fucking PIGHEADED and WRONG
"


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


THERE WAS NO CASE TO RETRY!!!!! 
They held a KASTIGAR hearing to determine if any IMMUNIZED testimony tainted the trial. If it would have been decided in the KASTIGAR hearing that no immunized testimony tainted the trial, then the conviction would have stood. But McFarlane covered North's ass and the ORIGINAL case was DISMISSED.

One more time:

Walsh Iran / Contra Report - Chapter 2 United States v. Oliver L. North
     The North Appeal   

     North appealed his convictions on all three counts on a variety of grounds.  North's most serious *appeals  issues related to Judge Gesell's application of the Kastigar decision  in keeping North's trial free of taint from his immunized congressional  testimony *and the application of the Classified Information Procedures Act during the trial.   
     The appeals were argued at the United States Court of Appeals for  the District of Columbia Circuit on February 6, 1990.  The court ruled  on July 20, 1990.    
     By a 2-1 vote, the Appeals Court set aside North's convictions.   The divided court ruled that Judge Gesell erred in failing to hold a  full hearing as required by Kastigar to *ensure that the prosecution witnesses made no use of North's immunized congressional testimony. 
*

     The Court of Appeals disagreed sharply with the Independent Counsel  and Judge Gesell's definition of ``use'' under the federal use-immunity  statute.  *The Court of Appeals determined that the statute, as  interpreted in Kastigar, prevented ``evidentiary'' uses of immunized  testimony including ``the use of immunized testimony by witnesses to  refresh their memories, or otherwise to focus their thoughts, organize  their testimony, or alter their prior or contemporaneous statements.*  . . .''  The court observed that Judge Gesell never inquired into these  uses of immunized testimony, and it held that warnings to witnesses not  to testify to anything  they did not know or recall first-hand did not  insure against such uses.

     The Court of Appeals did not reject Judge Gesell's Kastigar rulings  in their entirety.  The court upheld his determination that Independent  Counsel did not present any of North's *immunized testimony* to  the Grand Jury or trial jury.  The court also affirmed the District  Court's holdings that Independent Counsel did not use the* immunized testimony*  to guide its prosecutorial or trial decisions, and that Independent  Counsel had proven untainted leads to all of its witnesses.   
     Nevertheless,* the court remanded all three convictions to the  District Court for a ``witness-by-witness [and,] if necessary . . .  line-by-line and item by item'' inquiry into the content as well as the  sources of grand jury and trial witness testimony.*

*Independent Counsel decided to return for additional Kastigar hearings*  in Judge Gesell's court, as prescribed by the Court of Appeals.*  In two days of remand hearings,  McFarlane testified that his trial testimony was ``colored'' by, and  that he was deeply affected by, North's immunized congressional  testimony.*


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

holy shit
what the fuck are you actually arguing now?
i said the conviction were VACATED
i was right, and you even proved that
you are so fucking dense its unfuckingbelievable


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

in other words, you fucking pedantic moron, Oliver North remains and UNCONVICTED person


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> in other words, you fucking pedantic moron, Oliver North remains and UNCONVICTED person


No, Traitor North remains CONVICTED but IMMUNE.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > in other words, you fucking pedantic moron, Oliver North remains and UNCONVICTED person
> ...


look up what it means to have a conviction vacated, moron
you remain WRONG


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

here, you fucking moron

Vacate Law & Legal Definition


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> here, you fucking moron
> 
> Vacate Law & Legal Definition





> Vacate is a term subject to *different meanings.* In the context of a  court order or decision, vacate means to overrule or void. A decision  may be vacated for error, however, the error must be significant enough  that it affected the outcome. Vacating a conviction for a crime*  sometimes *refers to when a court determines you have met certain  conditions and orders the conviction removed from your criminal history  record.




The 3 judge panel said that the conviction was vacated FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. They overrule you!

Walsh Iran / Contra Report - Summary of Prosecutions
Oliver L. North -- Indicted March 16, 1988, on 16 felony counts.  After standing trial on 12, *North was convicted May 4, 1989 of three charges*:   accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction  of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was  sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a  three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in  fines and 1,200 hours community service.  A three-judge appeals panel on  *July 20, 1990*,*vacated North's conviction for further proceedings* * to determine whether his immunized testimony influenced witnesses in  the trial.*  The Supreme Court declined to review the case. * Judge Gesell dismissed the case September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue,* on the motion of Independent Counsel.


----------



## Liability (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Col. North's conviction was reversed. Vacated.  Made void.  The prosecution elected not to try again and dismissed the case.  Col. North's presumption of innocence remains inviolate forever as a consequence.  

He wasn't even CHARGED with being a "traitor," you imbecile.   And what he did wasn't traitorous, either, in any event.

In short, as is so frequently the case with you and your sub-imbecile postings, you are entirely wrong in all regards yet again, edthesickdick.


----------



## Liability (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > here, you fucking moron
> ...



LOL.

It is frequently the case that a conviction reversed on appeal gets remanded back to the trial court for further procxeedings.  Indictments can be refiled.  A reversal -- standing alone -- doesn't bar re-prosecution.

In Col. North's case, the matter WAS sent back for further proceedings to determine whether or not the immunized testimony could be adequately snipped from the prosecution's case.  U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell determined that it was very problematic.  





> Judge Gesell dismissed the case September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of Independent Counsel.


 -- Iran-Contra Affair Prosecutions, Convictions and Pardons - List of Prosecutions, Convictions and Pardons in Reagan's Iran-Contra Affair

When the case in which the conviction had been reversed (vacated) got sent back for further proceedings, in short, there WERE further proceedings and the ultimate determination was that t*he case got dismissed.*

Presumption of innocence thus remains intact forever.  Col. North has exactly ZERO criminal convictions on his record.  

No matter how often you repeat your glaringly ignorant, arrogant and erroneous assertions, therefore, edthesickdick, the FACTS prove you wrong.  It doesn't even matter what font type or size of color you use.   The FACT that you are wrong stands, triumphantly, over this discussion.


----------



## Liability (Feb 22, 2011)

Back in April of 2009, Col. North made sure he disseminated* THIS little piece authored by the United States Government: 

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

A disgusting tract.  Shameful shit by the US Government.  Of course, the crap, itself, SAYS the following:



> (U) LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NOTICE: This product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES information
> should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardize
> investigative activities.
> (U) Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the
> ...


​
Col. North should be getting kudos from the left wing uber libs who love it whenever any of our classified materials (or other "secret" materials) get wide-spread public airing.

______________________
* _See_, I Am an Extremist - Page 1 - Oliver North - Townhall Conservative


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

Liability said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


While Traitor North has a clean record on a technicality, there was enough evidence to convict him in a court of law as well as his own admissions of guilt under oath and under immunity that he can never regain the presumption of innocence.

For example, count 9 - destroying evidence, North admitted guilt under immunity. In fact, he bragged about all the document shredding jamming the shredder. He cannot admit guilt under immunity and still retain a presumption of innocence.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


no shit, moron
what the fuck do you think i have been telling you all fucking NIGHT
he is NOT a convict
you fucking moron'


----------



## Liability (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Col. North (not "traitor North") is not now norwas he ever a traitor.  

Words have actual meaning, you limp dead dick, even if that fact bothers you.

Now, moving on to the thrust of your current quibble.  I never said that Col. North had not broken some laws.  What I said -- several times -- was that he is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.  And that is forever true, your misgivings about objective reality notwithstanding.

Yes.  He shredded docs.  He also traded arms for hostages.  But, in the eyes of the law, nothing is changed.  He is still (forever) presumed to be innocent.  It never ever goes away.   Cool eh?

And that "technicality" you are all bothered by?  They call it the Constitution, kid.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 22, 2011)

Meh, I was sure Reagan pardoned North.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 22, 2011)

Madeline said:


> > When conservative commentators begin eating their own, you know that something is up.
> >
> > Debbie Schlussel is a reasonably well-known conservative commentator with a large radio and online following.  While I have always found her to be over the top  particularly with her anti-Muslim rhetoric  she certainly has the respect of the conservative community. So when she broke a story a few days ago accusing Sean Hannitys charity of being a scam, this naturally got my attention.
> >
> ...



No way!   I knew Hannity was an honorable man when he went thru with being Waterboarded for the Wounded Warriors Charity.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Meh, I was sure Reagan pardoned North.


just confirming you dont know what you are talking about


----------



## Madeline (Feb 22, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, I was sure Reagan pardoned North.
> ...



It's been like thirty years, Divey.  I wouldn't know unless I looked it up.

Was fun watching you guys go at it, though.

Group hug time yet?


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 22, 2011)

These should help clear this up some.... 

Hannitized is Sanitized | FrumForum

http://www.frumforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/freedom_alliance_response.pdf


----------



## Madeline (Feb 22, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> These should help clear this up some....
> 
> Hannitized is Sanitized | FrumForum
> 
> http://www.frumforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/freedom_alliance_response.pdf



The guy raises interesting comments in rebuttal, GWV5903, but this is not enough.  The 990's (informational returns) say whatever the hell they say.  Assuming Rick Ungar (author of the linked article in the Op) got the numbers right, it's amazing no state's AG is pursuing this charity on consumer fraud grounds.

At this point, we cannot go further unless we actually get copies of the documents and read them for ourselves.  Since there should be new batch in a few weeks, I say we wait.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

Madeline said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > These should help clear this up some....
> ...


maddy, there is and was NO FRAUD


----------



## Madeline (Feb 22, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



You are basing that on what, Divey?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 22, 2011)

Madeline said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


the facts, maddy
not some delusional liberal rant


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 23, 2011)

Madeline said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > These should help clear this up some....
> ...



The only thing Freedom Alliance can be accused of is that concerts are not the most efficient way to generate revenue....

Schlussel accused Hannity of corruption based on her unnamed source? Didn't we enter a war based on someone named Curveball, who years later admitted that he only wanted Saddam Hussein taken down? As for Unger, he jumped on board because he admittedly can't stand him....

The 990's are public information, if any AG was going after FA it would have already happened and at this point would smell purely partisan....


----------

