A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The latter. It would cost more than that to bring and there is no guaranty that costs would be recovered.

Do car companies fight these suits through extended litigation?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Do car companies fight these suits through extended litigation?

No idea.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Do car companies fight these suits through extended litigation?

Not in George W. Bush's case. He was the plaintiff who sued Enterprise Rent a Car in 1999 when his daughter, Jenna, was involved in the fender bender. After filing suit in Austin, Texas, Bush settled with Enterprise for around $2000:

• Sunday, August 27, 2000 Associated Press
  
  NEW YORK--George W. Bush, who as Texas governor advocated and signed legislation limiting civil lawsuits, filed a case of his own against a rental car agency over a minor accident involving one of his daughters.
  
  Bush, the Republican presidential nominee, sued Enterprise Rent-A-Car in Austin, Texas, for the Sept. 8, 1998, accident, according to an article in Saturday's New York Daily News. The April 1999 civil suit was filed in Austin, the newspaper said.
  
  Lawyers familiar with Texas insurance law told the paper the type of lawsuit Bush filed probably was unnecessary because his insurance policy would have handled the costs.
  
  Bush's lawyer, Sean Breen, said the case was settled for about $2,000.
  
  No one was hurt in the accident. The lawsuit said that Bush's 1995 Jeep was hit while one of Bush's twin daughters, Jenna, was driving "in a careful and prudent manner," and that Enterprise shared blame because it had rented a car to a driver whose license was suspended.

linky

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
[gotcha!]

Nicely played.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Nicely played.

You didn't see that coming?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


linky

Nope SS, this is a loss for Ty. he's linked to a blog he apparently reads that equates Bush to hitler- I guess the blogger feels that appropriate since Bush took out of power one of three people who have killed as many as did Hitler. You guys are too much. i'm disqualifying Ty from the superbowl Pool over this one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Nope SS, this is a loss for Ty. he's linked to a blog he apparently reads that equates Bush to hitler- I guess the blogger feels that appropriate since Bush took out of power one of three people who have killed as many as did Hitler. You guys are too much. i'm disqualifying Ty from the superbowl Pool over this one.

If you read more of that blog than I quoted, then you are the loser here. Sorry, pal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Did Alberto Gonzales lie in his confirmation hearings about helping to get then-Gov. Bush out of jury duty? I wouldn't know, but that's the gist of this story in Newsweek by Michael Isikoff. "The judge and other lawyers in the case last week disputed a written account of the matter provided by Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'It's a complete misrepresentation,' said David Wahlberg, lawyer for the dancer, about Gonzales's account."

• While Gonzales's account tracks with the official court transcript, it leaves out a key part of what happened that day, according to Travis County Judge David Crain. In separate interviews, Crain—along with Wahlberg and prosecutor John Lastovica—told NEWSWEEK that, before the case began, Gonzales asked to have an off-the-record conference in the judge's chambers. Gonzales then asked Crain to "consider" striking Bush from the jury, making the novel "conflict of interest" argument that the Texas governor might one day be asked to pardon the defendant (who worked at an Austin nightclub called Sugar's), the judge said. "He [Gonzales] raised the issue," Crain said. Crain said he found Gonzales's argument surprising, since it was "extremely unlikely" that a drunken-driving conviction would ever lead to a pardon petition to Bush. But "out of deference" to the governor, Crain said, the other lawyers went along. Wahlberg said he agreed to make the motion striking Bush because he didn't want the hard-line governor on his jury anyway. But there was little doubt among the participants as to what was going on. "In public, they were making a big show of how he was prepared to serve," said Crain. "In the back room, they were trying to get him off."

By getting excused from jury duty, Bush was able to avoid disclosing his 1976 DUI arrest and conviction.

What a fucked-up world, that this story has a better chance of scuttling Gonzales' nomination than does his support of torture.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did Alberto Gonzales lie in his confirmation hearings about helping to get then-Gov. Bush out of jury duty? I wouldn't know, but that's the gist of this story in Newsweek by Michael Isikoff. "The judge and other lawyers in the case last week disputed a written account of the matter provided by Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'It's a complete misrepresentation,' said David Wahlberg, lawyer for the dancer, about Gonzales's account."

• While Gonzales's account tracks with the official court transcript, it leaves out a key part of what happened that day, according to Travis County Judge David Crain. In separate interviews, Crain—along with Wahlberg and prosecutor John Lastovica—told NEWSWEEK that, before the case began, Gonzales asked to have an off-the-record conference in the judge's chambers. Gonzales then asked Crain to "consider" striking Bush from the jury, making the novel "conflict of interest" argument that the Texas governor might one day be asked to pardon the defendant (who worked at an Austin nightclub called Sugar's), the judge said. "He [Gonzales] raised the issue," Crain said. Crain said he found Gonzales's argument surprising, since it was "extremely unlikely" that a drunken-driving conviction would ever lead to a pardon petition to Bush. But "out of deference" to the governor, Crain said, the other lawyers went along. Wahlberg said he agreed to make the motion striking Bush because he didn't want the hard-line governor on his jury anyway. But there was little doubt among the participants as to what was going on. "In public, they were making a big show of how he was prepared to serve," said Crain. "In the back room, they were trying to get him off."

By getting excused from jury duty, Bush was able to avoid disclosing his 1976 DUI arrest and conviction.

What a fucked-up world, that this story has a better chance of scuttling Gonzales' nomination than does his support of torture.

I read that and didn't really see the issue vis a vis his testimony.

I'm a dumb transactional guy, but aren't chambers discussions confidential?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I read that and didn't really see the issue vis a vis his testimony.

I'm a dumb transactional guy, but aren't chambers discussions confidential?

The problem comes if he misrepresented his role to the Senate:

• Asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy to describe "in detail" the only court appearance he ever made on behalf of Bush, Gonzales—who was then chief counsel to the Texas governor—wrote that he had accompanied Bush the day he went to court "prepared to serve on a jury." While there, Gonzales wrote, he "observed" the defense lawyer make a motion to strike Bush from the jury panel "to which the prosecutor did not object." Asked by the judge whether he had "any views on this," Gonzales recalled, he said he did not.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The problem comes if he misrepresented his role to the Senate:

• Asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy to describe "in detail" the only court appearance he ever made on behalf of Bush, Gonzales—who was then chief counsel to the Texas governor—wrote that he had accompanied Bush the day he went to court "prepared to serve on a jury." While there, Gonzales wrote, he "observed" the defense lawyer make a motion to strike Bush from the jury panel "to which the prosecutor did not object." Asked by the judge whether he had "any views on this," Gonzales recalled, he said he did not.

Sounds like that's what actually happened, at least on the record (or whatever the proper term is). This is a non-issue, and NW is grasping here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sounds like that's what actually happened, at least on the record (or whatever the proper term is). This is a non-issue, and NW is grasping here.

It sounds like he failed to tell the committee a whole bunch of stuff, and instead left them with a different impression about the episode. Other people would say he misrepresented the truth. Now he's saying he can't recall any of it.

eta:
Actually, it's worse than simple omission, because he told the Senate that the judge asked for his views and he said he had none. But there was that whole other conversation with the judge, where he said his piece . . . .

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you read more of that blog than I quoted, then you are the loser here. Sorry, pal.

Whenever I look beyond what you quote, it seems your stories fall apart factually, or the authors reveal themselves as being very wormy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Whenever I look beyond what you quote, it seems your stories fall apart factually, or the authors reveal themselves as being very wormy.

The "author" of that story was the AP, no?

Next, tell me Isikoff is a member of the vast left-wing conspiracy.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It sounds like he failed to tell the committee a whole bunch of stuff, and instead left them with a different impression about the episode. Other people would say he misrepresented the truth. Now he's saying he can't recall any of it.

eta:
Actually, it's worse than simple omission, because he told the Senate that the judge asked for his views and he said he had none. But there was that whole other conversation with the judge, where he said his piece . . . .

I still don't see any of this as material, but it also brings me back to my question - what is the status of chamber discussions? Are they confidential?