I probably won’t start those lessons until my birthday- in March!

I think that Sigler has accomplished what he set out to do. He has publicly stated that other testimony REFUTES what Kelty said under oath.

John,

When Kelty uses the term “politically motivated” he is accusing the GRAND JURY of political bias. Likewise, when he is convicted, it will be “politics”.

Gadfly,

My point exactly! It DID NOT work for Bill Clinton. Yes, I believe Bill Clinton committed perjury. Having said that I also want to note this: Ken Starr was investigating a land deal- and strayed VERY far from that to find something to accuse Clinton of. Whitewater itself NEVER resulted in any charges.

The Grand Jury followed the original complaint- and did not have to look to far to find violations.

Prosecutor Sigler says of Kelty proclaiming his innocence (an innocence we all have by right until proven guilty, yes even Mr. Kelty), “[Kelty's] statements are an attempt to undermine the public’s trust”. Yet since August, both papers in town have run some variation if these 4 paragraphs in every story that has referenced Kelty;

“In August, a grand jury convened by Sigler issued a nine-count indictment against Kelty alleging improper handling of campaign contributions and that he lied in his testimony to the grand jury.

Five of the felony indictments deal with how Kelty reported a $150,000 loan he received from Fred Rost, former campaign chairman and head of Allen County Right to Life, and another $10,000 he received from Steve and Glenna Jehl, his campaign manager.

Two additional felony counts allege perjury in his testimony regarding a Zogby opinion poll conducted before the Republican primary.

The remaining two counts are misdemeanors, recklessly commingling funds, stemming from how he handled his personal versus campaign money.”

Yet it is Kelty, with his now irrelevant website and pitiful plee for financial assistance that is undermining the very basis of the legal system upon which this great nation was founded (cue The Battle Hymn of the Republic).

A reporter once told Kelty, “My editor makes me add those paragraphs in every story.”

Sigler is trying his case in the papers knowing he doesn’t have a case in court, and it appears the JG & NS are helping him by sitting 2nd and 3rd chair for him.

Fourth Estate or Fifth Column?

How can a Democrat object to the “definition of ‘is’ defense that worked so well for Bubba?

So do you think Bill Clinton was guilty as well?

Kevin, please tell us what article or amendment of the Constitution you believe denies Matt this right.

I agree that Kelty’s motion to dismiss was bizarre. It’s like someone saying “Sure, I admitted to the crime, but I did so before I was Mirandized so it shouldn’t count.” Legally that person may be absolved, but everyone that hears this will know he’s really guilty! And there have been other things said by Kelty that I felt were equally bizarre.

But Kelty is the defendant here. The line for him and Sigler is not the same one. It does not matter how much whining and pandering for public sentiment that Kelty does. This is no reason for Sigler to follow suit. For him to try to bring his case into the public forum before the trial is unprofessional. It shows a lack of judgment.

But when Sigler requests that only a portion of the testimony be released he calls his own ethics into question. Kelty is accusing him, among others, of initiating a political witch hunt. Sigler responds by turning to the public and saying – I can prove to you that I’m right, but I will only show you the parts of the document which support my claim.

How’s this for a solution? We send the case out of state. We don’t tell the jurors there anything about the political issues of our city. We don’t identify Kelty’s political affiliation in any way. I think that’s probably the only way this issue will ever be resolved fairly.

Great.

Save the taxpayers some money.

We all know this whole fiasco was politically motivated. While the argument exists of which party started the whole situation (it was probably not a party but an Individual who says he is a Republican yet served on the transition team that was behind all this in the first place), it is mute that basis for this whole case was political motivation to influence the result of an election.

Had a loan been given in this matter to Nelson Peters, these issues would have never seen the light of day…so Kelty is within his rights to believe that on the whole…this case was politically motivated. Now to say that Sigler had direct political motives may be incorrect…but he has never claimed that Dan Sigler had a personal political agenda against him, just that the WHOLE sitatuation was politically motivated.

That said, I do believe Dan Sigler has a personal political motivation/agenda in this case. A lose would severely hamper his political cred with the Democratic Party and his overall standing in the state. It would also further harm his attempts at future political office while it would give a boost to Kelty’s chances should he run for another office because he will have been seen as a martyr then.

Regardless, Sigler’s argument to allow the partial testimony to become public record will most likely be denied by the court. You even agree on that. The defense has always had the advantage when it comes to winning public appeal. It is the job of the prosecutor to win the case in the courtroom in front of the Jurors and that is the only place the testimony needs to be heard. Sigler should realize this and not concern himself with what the populous thinks. The majority of the population thought this whole issue was politically motivated before it even got to him and it was further impacted as politically motivated when Common Cause, with whom Democrat Andy Downs used to be a board member, filed the complaint…and you would have only added fuel to the political motivation storm had you filed the complaint.

I’m w/Carol on this one.

B.G.

Oh… read that Tom Henry will accept a pay raise. I’m so glad to know he’s already doing such a bang up job that people want to financially reward him. My gosh.

I would disagree.

Kelty’s defense is “it depends on what the definition of the word “is is” and that will not fly in court.

Kelty has EVERY right to say he is innocent. I do NOT think he has a right to say that the charges are “politcally motivated”.

Bottom line- Sigler has already stated that there has been testimony that goes against Kelty’s statements- if that is true, he will be found guilty.