Re: Cheney shoots fellow hunter

Unfortunately, appearance is in the eye of the beholder. If he knew it was being taken care of, he wouldn't think it would "appear" as anything other than what it was.

Barbara Carlson wrote:

Let's face it, the Vice President is NOT a regular guy. It would be not be unusual that he would have expected someone to be taking care of those details for him. Let's give him a little privilege. The whole thing here is the "appearance" of a cover up. Any politician has to be cognizant of this. When I used to be a horse show judge and attended the required educational seminars to keep my license it was always stressed that one must avoid the APPEARANCE of dishonesty, not just dishonesty itself. This is where they missed the boat.

Barb C.
"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:7bUIf.7477$j53.6890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Except that for a "regular" guy ignorance of the law wouldn't be an excuse in same situation.


Barbara Carlson wrote:

It was a private farm/ranch and he was invited, apparently hunts there 2 or 3 times a year. It is possible that on private land he might not need a license--don't know. If he hunts there 2 or 3 times a year and the law says he should have a license then he should. If he was invited to come down and hunt, and he is the Vice President, well I would not get all stirred up if he did not have a license--someone should have acquired one for him, of course, but I would hang him for that. I think Vice Presidential status might indeed give him a little privilege. I don't like the guy, and I think someone used bad judgment in not acting more promptly, but I wouldn't tar and feather him for the license thing.

Barb C.
"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:bmQIf.7452$j53.6129@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Someone on another board I frequent now says there is talk that he didn't have a proper license and that the ranch is owned by one of the biggest lobbyists.

Barbara Carlson wrote:


According to the news, Cheney admitted to having a beer with his lunch--which they claimed was 5 hours before. (If it happened at 3:00 o'clock that would have made lunch at 10 a.m.?) I wouldn't call a beer at lunch a problem, but the thing is that is just his word and the delay involved raises suspicions that, if not true, could have been completely dispelled with prompt reporting. The situation stinks of coverup! Which, because of their actions may lead to totally unfair possible conclusions!

Barb C.
"Phyllis Nilsson" <phyllisnilsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:aY6dnaiml_g67G7eRVn-jA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Alcohol wouldn't dissipate that fast. If they'd taken a blood test it would have shown up. I understood the authorities were called just an hour or two after the shooting; it was the press who wasn't notified until later.

RaeMorrill wrote:



Well, we'll never know now will we? They can't do a test the next day and find out. I'd bet in any case involving any other average citizen, one of the first things a cop would ascertain is if there was alcohol involved and if there were any suspicion, they'd be doing blood or breath tests to determine if there was. Nice to be able to side-step that and get away with it.


Phyllis Nilsson wrote:




Was he drinking?

Susan Mitchell wrote:




No, we won't be they are already saying this is outrageous and out of
bounds. We shouldn't touch this precious man. YUCK. I think they kept him

from talking to local Sheriff's that night because he'd been

drinking,

just
my very prejudiced opinion. Funny, this high moral ground party is so devoid
of morals and good judgment on a daily basis and show it every single time
something like this comes up. If you so much better, show us by your
actions and deeds!





.

Loading