Sunday, September 20, 2009

Spin ... Spin ... Spin ...

Reilich claims Auberger was "rebuffed" by State Police & DA in attempt to get Greece PD investigation started

"People have only learned of these stories as they've been reported in the news: at the moment of the investigation or arrest. As they learn more of these situations over the next couple months, they will understand in greater detail what happened." ~~ GOP chairman William Reilich

Article Examines Suburban Elections In Wake Of Scandals, Etc.

SCATS ~~ If D.A. Mike Green isn't doing his job, MAYBE that should be made an issue, Mr. Reilich! So far, I've heard no complaints from Auberger ;)


Anonymous said...

Perhaps it was that the DA and State police would not do the investigation on Aubergers terms, that seems more plausible. So he went out and found a "friend of a friend". The only one to benefit from Loszynski has been Auberger; cops have been fired, un-known costs rise and still no answers. Loszynski has padded his retirement slush funds and Auberger remains "innocent and un aware" of the goings on in the town.

SCATS said...

To Coffee ~~ Not only that, but if you think about it, Auberger's investigation has only brought ONE NEW NAME UP for any criminal charges! All the other "bad actors" were known prior to Mr. L's arrival. I don't see that we got all that much "bang for our buck" like Mr. L promised ... and he's STILL HERE!

Anonymous said...

Auberger's story lacks plausibility.
Long before this the stage agency almost pulled the towns police accrediation and blamed much on Auberger.
What did he do about that?

Anonymous said...

Loszynski was hired almost five months ago. Why has it taken so long for Auberger's problem with the DA to come to light? Oh I know! It's only 43 days until the election now! Nothing like being an opportunist, is there Jack?

Anonymous said...

"the DA and State police would not do the investigation on Aubergers terms"

What is that even supposed to mean? The County District Attorney and the NY State police do not answer to any lower level of government and would not back away from conducting an investigation because some town supervisor was trying to force them down a particular path. If you believe that, your pretend outrage lies with them for shirking their duties.

It seems like you're just trying to make excuses to explain away what's really happening. Good try, but falls short of believable.

SCATS, Loszynski and Auberger have said the investigation was uncovering more on these individuals. I'm sure you would agree that you would want the investigation to be thorough, right? And your point that all but one person was known to be a bad apple prior to Loszynski is frankly untrue (some would call it a lie).

I know this site wants Maloney to win, but please don't make stuff up. How bout tryin to win fair and square? Unless you know Dan can't pull it off that way?

@12:55, I wouldn't call pointing out that the DA wasn't doing an investigation into the department a "problem" as you say. With so much misinformation intentionally being spread around here, those involved need to take tme away from actually doing the job and refute the lies.

Blast away.

Anonymous said...

Maybe he was "rebuffed" because it's a criminal investigation and Auberger is a suspect...did that ever dawn on your Mr. Reilich?

Auberger thinks that by trying to get to the State PD or the DA that he could elevate himself above the scandal.

When that didn't work, he hired Lozynski to try to accomplish the feat.

Wake up Greece - read between the lines and you'll "Discover the Promise"...which does not guarantee Jack a lifetime job in this town.


SCATS said...

To 1:21PM ~~ You asked for it:)

The bigger point here, which you seemed to have conveniently "forgotten" is WHY DID IT TAKE FROM APRIL UNTIL NOW TO FIND OUT THE DA & STATE POLICE DIDN'T RESPOND TO AUBERGER?

I'm pretty sure the answer to that is one of three things -- either it's an inaccurate assertion -- it's a political play (just 43 days to Nov. 3rd)-- or it's BOTH! I'm heavily leaning towards #3.

Regarding the "bad apple" count: We knew Joseph & Pignato were "bad" when we hired them. And they had already gone on to cause more chaos for GPD before the SHREDDING INCIDENT in late April. At that time, we found out three more (Rahn, Mackin & Ball) were
alleged "bad apples." Schamerhorn had a track record that everyone with eyes had to be aware of. So Trowbridge is the only name I've seen brought to light that wasn't already causing known trouble when Mr. L arrived. Unless you want to talk about Lt. Steve's sudden landing of those "fabulous" teaching jobs ... I suspect you really don't want to go there ;)

Anonymous said...

Reilich hopes it will take the next couple of months so they can try to fool the public until AFTER the election.

John Parinello needs to step up to the microphone NOW and blow them all out of the water.

This just PROVES beyond any reasonable doubt that Lozynski was the spin doctor Auberger needed to cover his own as*. Do they think the people of Greece are stupid?

Anonymous said...

looks like Firkins to me(1:21). Knowing how the system works (been there done that), yeah the SP and DA are not going to help facilitate a political purge of the department but they are in on the criminal stuff. Sure the L man is doing Augies bidding but the criminal stuff is going to get a lot of attention real soon. The Feds dont make a move until they are ready. Game on Kathy.po

Anonymous said...

Maybe they didn't want to talk to Auberger because he's being followed by the FBI for his involvement with ROBUTRAD. The ONLY local politician who received a DONATION from Robert Marone, the head of the ROBUTRAD Scandal was none other than Jack Auberger!


Anonymous said...

"looks like Firkins to me(1:21)."

SCATS, you gonna ever deal with stuff like this?

If not, then every single pro-Maloney or anti-Auberger anon here looks like Dan.

Anonymous said...

So they refused him. And Reilich announces this publicly? HAHAHA! Way to go Bill! You just proved your "clients" guilt!

[n. ri-buhf, ree-buhf; v. ri-buhf]

1. a blunt or abrupt rejection, as of a person making advances.

2. a peremptory refusal of a request, offer, etc.; snub.
3. a check to action or progress.

–verb (used with object)
4. to give a rebuff to; check; repel; refuse; drive away.

SCATS said...

To 2:31PM ~~ How can I deal with someone's opinion of how another person sounds when I don't know either person?

Anonymous said...

what if that person said "kathy we all know that's you at 1:21". Is that objectionable?

SCATS said...

To 3:07PM ~~ I don't know who you were asking, but it's fine by me.

Anonymous said...

1:21 it makes perfect sense. If Auberger wanted to control what the scope of the investigation would be, ie set the parameters, then it would not be on terms favorable to Auberger. ( Now McCann can spin that DA refubbed him) What does not make sense is how seemingly intelligent people still believe that Auberger is clean in all this mess.

BTW I am not a Maloney supporter either.