Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Open Forum

The Sullivan/Zarella hearings have stalled while the judiciary committee decides what to do.

Jeffrey Garfied caught in another 'mistake': this time about emails that he said weren't there, but actually were. Can we fire him yet?

What else is happening?

33 comments:

Genghis Conn said...

Oh, and one serious thing. Yesterday was bad on a lot of levels. We all naturally want to make sure that everything here is above board, but revealing the personal/business information of another blogger on a public forum is not the right thing to do, especially if you don't know all the facts. The consequences for that person could potentially be either personally or financially devestating. It's probably better to contact me first with your concerns before posting something that could be damaging to another person--even if its someone you disagree with or don't like. In fact, this is what one person did, and I'd like to thank him for trusting me enough to deal with it.

I hope that we can move on from here.

BRubenstein said...

Mr Garfield should testify...and if he is found to have not sent the evidence ..but either hid or destroyed the evidence before sending over the package of evidence to the legislature..then he should be forced to resign or be fired as he will have been found to have compromised his office and his agency.

BRubenstein said...

GC..i didnt post her personal info and i did ask YOU to check out the situation...

TSCowperthwait said...

First, on the Sullivan/Zarella topic, I find it amazing that Senator Williams actually said this:

"By Sullivan's own admission, he deliberately withheld information from the public and the legislature to further a political purpose of expediting his protégé's nomination as Supreme Court chief justice," Williams said. "To abuse his authority for ultimately a political purpose, and deliberately deceive the legislature, is one of the worst things he could do. Given what he did, I think we'll be forced to consider impeachment."

WOW! Those are some pretty strong words. I'm not so sure that anyone should be talking about impeachment quite yet though.

Second, Jeffrey Garfield should resign or be fired. If the Courant's facts are correct, and Garfield actually had possession of those re-stored e-mails before the requests were made, he essentially obstructed the investigation. I don't care if people think that it is a worthy investigation or not, the fact remains that we should not want someone in his position (or any government position) who acts in that manner. As a Republican, I think Mr. Garfield should be fired or resign. We cannot continue to have the appearance of impropriety in our local and state governments. It needs to stop!

Third, keep up the good police work, Genghis.

bluecoat said...

I Googled the blogger's own handle and found the info on the first reference and then linked it;if that's wrong then please delete my posts if you have not already done so; I have been blasted by some bloggers for not disclosing who I am, and I think that's wrong too since I comply with the blog's rules while at the same time protecting my identity for my own reasons.

bluecoat said...

and TSC, your point about Garfield is well taken; unfortunatley the Republicans have labeled the GAE investigation a "witch hunt" when Rell has pledged the full cooperation of her staff and even her own appearance before the committee if called....

TSCowperthwait said...

Bluecoat, I am aware that the Republicans have labeled the investigation a "witch hunt" and, to an extent, I agree with that characterization. However, just because I think that the investigation itself might be politically motivated does not mean that I will stand in support of corruption. Obstruction is a serious offense. IF Garfield had the documents and did not provide them, then he has some serious explaining to do - and to date, his explanations have been very inconsistent.

I am tired of turning on the news and, if it's not a story about a shooting in Hartford, it's another political corruption-type story. We need to change that image.

BRubenstein said...

First...the legislature has the statutory authority to conduct this hearing...whether its a witchhunt or not is a political matter only...and frankly i dont think its a witchunt.

Secondly..since it has the statutory authority..can it subpoena Mr Garfield and force him to appear and testify and to submit documents?..yes..according to the statutes and case law...

Thirdly...can the legislative committee make a "finding" about Mr Garfield if the evidence warrants it? absolutely...

Lastly...can he be removed from his position as Director for culpability in not bring forth documents etc as requested...yes..by his superior that he reports too...pursuant to statute only as to a civil servant...

BRubenstein said...

I agree with TSC on the matter...

bluecoat said...

I never thought Chris Caruso was playing politics and I thought his co-chair from the Senate, Meyer - former prosecutor, was acting like a dumb prosecutor in search of some conspiracy that never existed. My point was, the Republicans made it political whn they opposed it from my view anyway. Jodi said OK and the GOP said the Democrats were going after her - it made no sense...and let me add that what I see in Garfield and Moody are a couple of entitled arrogant career government employees from the crowd in state govt. rather than crooks...

TSCowperthwait said...

Bluecoat, I'm sure that you and I hold a very different opinion of Chris Caruso.

BRubenstein said...

GC..in a prior posting i inquired about a blog pizza party at the time of the L&L debate on 7/6...could you respond?

bluecoat said...

Before Chris Caruso, it was 'you don't rat on me and I won't rat on you'; I don't adore him, I just think that finally at least with regard to the GAE, the GA is doing oversight and it has a lot to do with Caruso...

TSCowperthwait said...

BRubenstein, what did you have in mind? First & Last in Hartford? Sally's, Pepe's or Modern in New Haven?

AnonAndOnAndOn said...

It's funny how people ascribe political motives to REACTION, while giving ACTION a free pass.

Case in point: With the Moddygate hearings, and now with the Tocco Salad, it's always the second step--the reaction--where motives are questioned. Not the first step. This sets up the dynamic, in these two cases, whereby the GOP is cast as having to go along to be statesmen and women, or risk playing politics if they resist or complain.

This allows Lawlor, for example, to say that he's concerned that partisanship would taint any move the committee makes.

"You don't want it undermined by purely partisan politics," Lawlor said. (HC)

Masterful!

To be candid, the Moody/Garfield matter should have been investigated. And bluecoat is right: Meyer made Caruso look like Cicero.

I think Judiciary should have had their hearing yesterday and mined it for all they could. THEN decided which way to go. Kissel and Farr are right.

But let's watch what unfolds... And whether partisanship comes into play on the first or second step in the next dance. My guess is it will be on the second.

If that is by accident, or laziness in reporting... shame on those of us who play into it.

If that is by design by Lawlor or some others... then my compliments. I may disagree with it, but sometimes you just have to salute sheer political cunning and skill.

GOD, I love politics!

Paul Vance said...

I have dealt with Jeff Garfield and he seems like a decent guy, but I tend to agree with Bruce. If Garfield was witholding information, he should be on the hot seat. I look forward to an explaination on that issue.


Bruce, are you buying at this 'pizza party'?

disgruntled_republican said...

I think you should make it in Enfield...otherwise I can't attend...4th of July Celebration...cheap plug I know but check out our website:
HERE

KerryGuy said...

Garfield is not just chummy with Moody - he is chummy with all the "ins", the elected officials of both parties. He will not be getting fired. He will probably not even be called to testify again, and if he does, he will explain it away as a misunderstanding of the Committee's request. This will all come to nothing in the end. And if there is a puch to get rid of him, beware the lesson of Alan Plofsky and how much that entire debale will end up costing the state.

Genghis Conn said...

Pizza party, huh? Hmm... not a bad idea. What did you have in mind?

Paul Vance said...

Good Event this weekend in Waterbury, hope to see some folks there. And best of all, it is free at Library park in Waterbury.

Thursday, Friday, Saturdays, June 29 - July 1, 2006

Time: 6:30 pm
Shakesperience Productions, Inc.
Romeo and Juliet
Library Park, 373 Grand Street in Waterbury, CT
Tickets: Free ($5 donation suggested)

BRubenstein said...

GC...i will buy...check around at peppe's ..sally's and first and last...see where we could eat and watch the debate...

BRubenstein said...

i will pay for the pizza's..you all will pay for the beer etc that you swill...

Mr. Reality said...

What bothers me the most is that Moody/Rell were the ones advocating "clean" elections. Garfield negotiated a lot of what was in the final bill. They could not look anymore foolish. Didn't this all happen around the same time the Gov. signed the bill?

I did not watch much of Moody's testimony before the committee but I did hear her say that she is not liked because she's the one who makes the tough decisions. She's the one who has to say "no" to people and she's the one who has to fire people as well.

This has me wondering..if someone else on staff did what Moody had done does anyone here think that person would still have a job. C'mon Lisa would have fired that person in a hearbeat to make an example of how they are serious about clean campaigns.

Paul Vance said...

The Blog meet should happen (and someone should let Aldon know, I think he is the unofficial social chair).

Bruce, I was only kidding about you picking up the tab. I don't want to run afoul of any ethics rules.

Paul Vance said...

Perhaps Baccos in Waterbury? Good pizza.

BRubenstein said...

Paul..there arent any ethics rules...im not a lobbyist or involved in waterbury in any way...nor am i a paid operative..so relax..im more then happy to pay for the pizza's if GC can find a place where the pizza is good and there is a tv..

BRubenstein said...

Paul..there arent any ethics rules...im not a lobbyist or involved in waterbury in any way...nor am i a paid operative..so relax..im more then happy to pay for the pizza's if GC can find a place where the pizza is good and there is a tv..

BRubenstein said...

paul...check out Bacco's..does it have a tv where we all can see the debate? how is the pizza?

BRubenstein said...

paul...check out Bacco's..does it have a tv where we all can see the debate? how is the pizza?

HuskyFan06 said...

Earth to Murphy’s campaign! I posted on your blog curious to see which senate resolution [The Kerry proposal that would bring troops home by July 2007 or the Reed-Levin proposal that would start pulling troops out his year without a specific deadline for withdrawal of all troops] would receive Chris’s support. It’s curious to have a blog and not answer. Any thoughts where Chris Murphy is on the issue? Also does anyone know if he is going to face the facts and endorse Lamont?

IAmBatman537 said...

Are you telling me he's blocking the blogs- Outrageous! If you gonna have a blog keep it open. Sounds like something Bush would do.

Marv5920 said...

I can't believe it. That goes against every reason why we have blogs.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Marv5920 said...
I can't believe it. That goes against every reason why we have blogs.


Southingtonlive deletes whatever doesn't suit them as well.