Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Rahn's Public Hearing Begins In 2 Weeks

  
<< ---- NEW POLL

WILL YOU BE THERE?

WHY or WHY NOT?

How long do you think the hearing will last? A week? Two weeks?

Can he save his job again?

 

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Cheap entertainment. But is it a comedy, a drama, maybe a musical with John dancing around the facts, or a morality play? Maybe we could set up a concession stand and try to offset the cost of the investigations! But if you read the trash mailings the Republicans are mailing out you would conclude that our town leaders were on top of everything from the get-go and have diligently pursued justice. Just one problem.....John-boy hired all the crooks and orchestrated every illegal act that has occurred. "Discover the Promise" means a whole bunch of things that were never intended! As John "said" to Merritt, "hire Pig and Joseph or I promise you that I'll screw you 7 ways to Sunday!" Ok, now I get it.

Anonymous said...

I will not be there although I am very interested. I am confident that this blog will keep us all informed as to what went on, as usual.

SCATS said...

To 10:42AM ~~ I'll do my best, but I have a feeling there won't be many seats left for the public. Seems to me like the media is about all that space can accomodate.

Anonymous said...

I get lots of information from Republican insiders and have been a supporter of John Auberger in the past.

The Town Republican party is in disarray and split into two distinct factions - Auberger Republicans and Riley/Boily Republicans. Because of the police scandal, one faction asked Auberger to resign and not seek reelection. The reason for this is obvious. Auberger refused to step down in spite of local pressure as well as county pressure.

Regarding the upcoming Rahn hearing on the 13th and 14th of October, Auberger, Joe Loszynski (that's right, he's still here) and DA Mike Green are pressuring the appointed hearing officer to close the Rahn hearing, citing that public disclosure of certain facts would compromise the criminal case against Rahn. Let's all hope and pray that they fail in this endeavor.

The last thing Auberger wants is Rahn's side of the story to be heard two weeks before the November election.

SCATS said...

To 12:35PM ~~ Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Rahn had the right to make the hearing public ... no?

Anonymous said...

Wow, there's a shocker. Another lie coming from an anti-Auberger (can we assume pro-Maloney? Oh no, of course not) commenter. At least these people have a comfortable home right here on SCATS where they can freely come to spread misinformation.

SCATS said...

To 1:22PM ~~ I'm SURE that if it were untrue YOU WOULD HAVE SET US STRAIGHT ... but you didn't ;)

How typical!

Anonymous said...

You're right SCATS, they like to call everyone a liar, but they never tell their version of the so-called "truth." If, in fact, misinformation is being spread, if I knew another version, I would be very quick to dispel any rumors.

SCATS said...

To 3:10PM ~~ I'm sure most people see what the responses lack after calling someone else a liar. At any rate, I've decided that I'm not going to publish any more such comments UNLESS they make a concerted effort to set the record straight in a very clear fashion.

Anonymous said...

Does that me we are allowed to get whatever anonymous accusation we want to make against someone moderated and then force the other side to have to respond to it? And if they don't, that makes them guilty of the accusation right? Cool.

On this particular item, is there actual proof besides "someone told me" or is this all the person has?

SCATS actually refutes the accusation by pointing out that whether the hearing is open or private is up to Rahn and Parinello, not Auberger, et al. Rahn needs to wave his privacy rights. I say wave em.

Anonymous said...

the Boily bunch is on the warpath on the golf course. They have a longstanding dislike for Auberger for pushing Roger and all his friends out of any positions of power.

SCATS said...

To the first 5:39PM ~~ It means that calling someone a liar or implying as much is name-calling. Substantiate the contention or refrain from making it. If you choose to just go with name-calling, your comment won't get posted. Capisce?

Regarding Rahn's hearing, I thought it was Rahn's call to make, but I'm asking if anyone can verify that as fact. Obviously, he waived his right to keep the charges against himself private, since they were given to the media.

Anonymous said...

I think it would be more appropriate to first ask accusers to prove their claims. It's too easy to make things up under the guise of a friend of a friend of a friend told me, or i personally spoke to someone who told me, etc.

On a side note, what are you supposed to call someone who lies? Liar is more of a "title" for someone who lies than name calling, imho. ;)

SCATS said...

To 9:44PM ~~ That's exactly what I'm getting at. If you call someone a liar without saying what you think the truth is, it is name-calling. Substantiate what you say, please.

Personally, I don't care for people who call others a liar, because there are other somewhat more socially accepted ways to convey the same meaning.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the Aug side wants it to be closed because if they have to testify against the chief his lawyer will be able to cross examine each of them and they might incriminate themselves. Let's hope it is open.
The only ones that look like they are cowering in fear are the ones that want it closed.

Anonymous said...

Let's face it, Auberger does not like transparency, so if he could not have a public hearing he would. Rahn's is a criminal case and they are public. I don't think that Auberger can invoke the state secrets act.

SCATS said...

To 4:25PM ~~ There is a big difference between Rahn's criminal case (set to begin Nov. 30th ... AFTER elections) and the internal PD investigation case scheduled for Oct. 13-14th. Rahn chose to have the internal investigation case open to the public. The problem is, Auberger seems to be headed in the direction of claiming that making that case open will impede the ongoing (and ongoing and ongoing) criminal investigations the DA is supposedly handling. Nice twist and not too political, right? ;)