Comments on: iePolitics: “She drank the Kool-Aid”

By: AntiCorruptionUnit

AntiCorruptionUnit — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:33:48 +0000

These latest charges could have, should have been part of the original filing if there was ever a basis for these charges.

Ramos complains of an orchestrated effort to smear him, well looking at start to finish of this investigation one might conclude the same about his conduct.

So is Ramos going to drag these new charges out for say a year or so and when the defendants are ready for trial going to come arrest them in the morning again for some new found crimes?

John Doe’s 1-5, it is obvious what is going to happen there. Hey guys it might be another year or so before the cops come knocking at your door and arrest you. Then another press release like yesterday.

Start pinching you pennies, your bail will be high.

And of course it would be wrong to conclude that at least yesterday’s press release was not in ANYWAY a chance for the “Mike and Jerry” show to grab just a little press for their future political agenda’s?

I am sure it is unfair to conclude that “Mike and Jerry” would ever draw this out until after election time??

Second thought, Mike is hoping the BOS drop his Tiger Woods issues?

Maybe not the issue at all, but it sure appears that way.

Just remember Mike Ramos, there is evidence you “lied” in your official capacity as District Attorney about your affairs before and during an official investigation.

WHY would anyone believe your not lying now?

Just one perspective and opinion.

By: brookshire

brookshire — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:23:43 +0000

8 comments on all the political angles of
Ramos, Postmus, Erwin, et al. The real
tragedy is that Postmus was in possession
of the very drug that he spent months
in rehab to kick. Very sad. We should pray he
heals.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:09:36 +0000

If Erwin really wanted the A.G. on his case, then he should have raised a very obvious conflict of interest that exists with those who are prosecuting him for Mikey boy: The attorneys union, of which the DDA’s involved prosecuting him are certainly members of, also has a civil lawsuit against Erwin for supposedly cutting a backroom deal with the BOS about Deputy 5 pay a few years ago when he negotiatied the contract for that union. So Mr. Cope for example would stand to personally gain by prosecuting and convicting Mr. Erwin of anything, b/c a criminal conviction for similar conduct would likely be admissable against Erwin in this civil suit. I read the motion online and did not see this very obvious conflict raised at all!!! So if you really want the DA off the case, just raise this issue at the next hearing!

By: White Rosie

White Rosie — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:19:28 +0000

Yes Jim wants the Attorney General to take over his case.

I’m not sure about the “secretly controlled PACs” as I knew and everyone I know that follows politics knew, so where is the secret.

By: Hello

Hello — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:10:36 +0000

EVERYONE KNEW WHO RAN THOSE PACS. There were no secrets. Ramos knew, Hansberger knew, Penrod knew, Uffer knew, everyone on the fifth floor knew. Even the newspapers knew. Conspiracy? Towards whose benefit. The Colonies settlement was done a year before.

And when the Attorney General, ya that guy named Moon Beam, needed that endorsement from the CA DA’s Association? Well, just guess who the incoming President is??? You Guessed it, Mikey Ramos.

The acts in the complaint are Sooo specific that they allegedly took place some time over a year and a half? That isn’t specific, that’s conjecture.

Nice try Anon

By: Anon.

Anon. — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:40:22 +0000

What surprises me (even though it shouldn’t) is the double standard at work by the author of this post. If government officials do something that hurts her or her friends, they are horrible, corrupt, incompetent, and malicious. If they are her friends, then they are misunderstood victims, wrongly accused scapegoats.

If an elected official takes a $100,000 contribution into a PAC he secrety controls, that looks at least fishy, right? It sure ain’t good government. Secretly controlled PAC’s are a crime against open, honest government. Read the complaint: the overt acts alleged are very specific, likely verifiable by a paper trail, and almost certainly evidence of a felony conspiracy. If those PAC’s were secretly controlled, then here’s the question: why? Doesn’t the Attorney General’s answer — in order to secretly divert funds for personal gain — seem reasonable? What other explanation could there be?

It’s hard when your friends turn out to be criminals. When it happens, it’s time for some soul-searching and forgiveness. But denial is another understandable reaction — as this post demonstrates.

By: publius

publius — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:29:44 +0000

White Rose you did not answer the question regarding the Attorney General. Didn’t Jim want him to take over the investigation?

By: Fed-Up

Fed-Up — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:44:21 +0000

In regards to Judge Warner, a friend of mine sat in on that trial and what she saw is unbelievable. Before the trial was over, during morning break, Judge Warner gets off the bench, puts his arm around Dan Richards and pats his shoulder like it will be alright and this showed they were good friends. My friend brought this to the county council, along with her notes and never heard any thing more. You see it was already a done deal!

By: White Rosie

White Rosie — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:02:43 +0000

The “old” refers to the bail, not the charges. Continued participation in the alleged illegal activity warrants a higher bail. There is nothing in the affidavit to suggest Jim has continued participating in conspiracies or briberies.

By: publius

publius — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:38:46 +0000

Unbelievable, you want us to believe that the District Attorney as well as the Attorney General don’t know what they are doing. Didn’t Jim want the Attorney General to take over his case because of the alleged political motivations of the DA? Now the spin is the Attorney General is on the political band wagon. Get Real! Lastly, your comment of these acts being old is irrelevant, the statute of limitations had not ran.