Another Kennedy Drunk-Driving Cover-Up?

[GotZoom]

Officers Claim Brass Interfered in Investigation of Rep. Kennedy Incident, ROLL CALL reports.

Police labor union officials asked acting Chief Christopher McGaffin this afternoon to allow a Capitol Police officer to complete his investigation into an early-morning car crash involving Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), son of Sen. Ted Kennedy.

According to a letter sent by Officer Greg Baird, acting chairman of the USCP FOP, the wreck took place at approximately 2:45 a.m. Thursday when Kennedy's car, operating with its running lights turned off, narrowly missed colliding with a Capitol Police cruiser and smashed into a security barricade at First and C streets Southeast.

A Capitol Police bulletin issued this afternoon stated that the department is investigating a "traffic violation that occurred in the early morning hours on May 4" at that location, ROLL CALL's John McArdle reports.

“The driver exited the vehicle and he was observed to be staggering,” Baird’s letter states. Officers approached the driver, who “declared to them he was a Congressman and was late to a vote. The House had adjourned nearly three hours before this incident. It was Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy from Rhode Island.”

Baird wrote that Capitol Police Patrol Division units, who are trained in driving under the influence cases, were not allowed to perform basic field sobriety tests on the Congressman. Instead, two sergeants, who also responded to the accident, proceeded to confer with the Capitol Police watch commander on duty and then “ordered all of the Patrol Division Units to leave the scene and that they were taking over.”

This morning's incident comes just over two weeks after Kennedy was involved in a car accident in Rhode Island.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

 

[jillian]

Did it trouble you as much when they weren't allowed to do a sobriety test on Cheney after the shooting incident?

 

[Avatar4321]

Did it trouble you as much when they weren't allowed to do a sobriety test on Cheney after the shooting incident?

I don't remember Cheney stumbling around drunk in the incident.

But the real question is why deflect the issue?

 

[GotZoom]

Did it trouble you as much when they weren't allowed to do a sobriety test on Cheney after the shooting incident?

I believe no one asked him to submit to a sobriety test. But if you can show me somewhere that proves that a sobriety test was prevented, then we'll talk about your point.

 

[Stephanie]

But the real question is why deflect the issue?

Huummmm. Maybe because he's a DEMOCRAT..
Do I win anything?
Oh thats the Jeopardy thread, sorry..

 

[jillian]

I don't remember Cheney stumbling around drunk in the incident.

But the real question is why deflect the issue?

I'm not deflecting. Just consistent. I think they both should have had sobriety tests and guns and cars shouldn't be used when one isn't sober.

And you wouldn't remember him stumbling around drunk because he was removed from the scene, taken out for dinner and police weren't allowed to interview him until the next morning.

 

[GotZoom]

I'm not deflecting. Just consistent. I think they both should have had sobriety tests and guns and cars shouldn't be used when one isn't sober.

And you wouldn't remember him stumbling around drunk because he was removed from the scene, taken out for dinner and police weren't allowed to interview him until the next morning.

But you didn't say that. You said:

Did it trouble you as much when they weren't allowed to do a sobriety test on Cheney after the shooting incident?

No where in there did you state that you thought they both should have had tests and that guns and cars shouldn't be used when not sober.

 

[jillian]

I believe no one asked him to submit to a sobriety test. But if you can show me somewhere that proves that a sobriety test was prevented, then we'll talk about your point.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/02/14/publiceye/entry1315386.shtml

 

[Stephanie]

And you wouldn't remember him stumbling around drunk because he was removed from the scene, taken out for dinner and police weren't allowed to interview him until the next morning.

OLD NEWS.. let it rest.....
It was investigated and ruled an accident. sheeesh

 

[GotZoom]

I will admit...I'm at work and just quickly read that article but I don't think I saw the words SOBRIETY TEST anywhere in the text.

Did I miss something?

I will refer to this news story though...

http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=8151

...which states:

"Cheney admitted that he had been drinking beer earlier at lunch but that no one went back out into the fields to continue hunting that took more alcohol with them. At the time of the hunting accident, Cheney was not asked to submit to a sobriety test."

 

[Stephanie]

I have to admit, I'm not surprised about another Kennedy trying for a coverup.
That whole clan are pretty sleezy. Too much inbreeding?

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Must be getting cynical, can't see why anyone's really surprised.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

On Drudge, might be a repeat link.

Like history, then. Like father, like son.

I know there's a whole bunch of Kennedys, but who keeps electing these people?

 

[Diuretic]

Did it trouble you as much when they weren't allowed to do a sobriety test on Cheney after the shooting incident?

Good question but don't expect consistency.

If there has been a cover-up for Kennedy then it's a disgrace and the FOP (which I believe in the past has expressed support for Democratic Party candidates) is right to demand that it be investigated.

If there has been a cover-up then there's a direct link to the Cheney alleged cover-up in that law enforcement officials in both instances were prevented from doing their duty.

And someone is bound to mention Chappaquiddick.

The common link between all of them is privilege. Party affiliation has nothing to do with it. It happens everywhere.

 

[jillian]

I will admit...I'm at work and just quickly read that article but I don't think I saw the words SOBRIETY TEST anywhere in the text.

Did I miss something?

I will refer to this news story though...

http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=8151

...which states:

"Cheney admitted that he had been drinking beer earlier at lunch but that no one went back out into the fields to continue hunting that took more alcohol with them. At the time of the hunting accident, Cheney was not asked to submit to a sobriety test."

Read the link I posted:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/02/14/publiceye/entry1315386.shtml

The police were not allowed access to him until the next morning. They tried, but were shoo'd off by the Secret Service.

Now...if it were you, and you shot someone in a hunting accident. Do you think you would have been allowed to say to the police "come back tomorrow, I don't feel like talking to you right now"?

Nope.

And again, my only point is that both circumstances bother me equally....Kennedy's and Cheney's.

And Diuretic has it right. It's about power, not party affiliation.

 

[jillian]

Good question but don't expect consistency.

If there has been a cover-up for Kennedy then it's a disgrace and the FOP (which I believe in the past has expressed support for Democratic Party candidates) is right to demand that it be investigated.

If there has been a cover-up then there's a direct link to the Cheney alleged cover-up in that law enforcement officials in both instances were prevented from doing their duty.

And someone is bound to mention Chappaquiddick.

The common link between all of them is privilege. Party affiliation has nothing to do with it. It happens everywhere.

Yes it does happen everywhere and its equally disgraceful. Also happens in the Bush family as it did regarding BushJr's drunk driving arrest. That's power going back way more generations than the Kennedy's.

And it IS all about power, not party.

 

[insein]

Good question but don't expect consistency.

If there has been a cover-up for Kennedy then it's a disgrace and the FOP (which I believe in the past has expressed support for Democratic Party candidates) is right to demand that it be investigated.

If there has been a cover-up then there's a direct link to the Cheney alleged cover-up in that law enforcement officials in both instances were prevented from doing their duty.

There was no cover up for Cheney. He cooperated. He told the investigators that "he had a few beers at lunch." I don't know about you but a few beers does not constitute "drunk." Cheney seems to be about 210 to 220lbs in that area. A few beers will not make him "drunk." For a person to be staggerring aroound drunk, they have to have had at least 8 to 10 beers if they are just drinking beer. About 5 or 6 shots would do it as well depending on the alcohol used.

And someone is bound to mention Chappaquiddick.

The common link between all of them is privilege. Party affiliation has nothing to do with it. It happens everywhere.

Imagine that. Mention chappaquiddick when the son of the man who killed a woman while driving drunk happens to be piss ass drunk while driving? Can't see where someone would make that leap.

 

[manu1959]

Did it trouble you as much when they weren't allowed to do a sobriety test on Cheney after the shooting incident?

who asked and who prevented it? got a link?

did it trouble you much that it took teddy longer to call the cops than it took clinton to admit that blow jobs are sexual relations?

 

[Diuretic]

There was no cover up for Cheney. He cooperated. He told the investigators that "he had a few beers at lunch." I don't know about you but a few beers does not constitute "drunk." Cheney seems to be about 210 to 220lbs in that area. A few beers will not make him "drunk." For a person to be staggerring aroound drunk, they have to have had at least 8 to 10 beers if they are just drinking beer. About 5 or 6 shots would do it as well depending on the alcohol used.

Bullshit he cooperated. There was a deliberate obstruction of the police. Go back and read about it. Btw anyone who has a clue knows guns and any alcohol (or dope) don't go together, that's just common sense. No point in indulging in speculation, there was obstruction of the police, that much is known. That's a cover-up. Cheney's handlers aren't stupid, they know that in politics the cover-up is usually worse than the sin except when the sin is so great that the cover-up is worth the risk. So, if Cheney hadn't been drinking and had actually shot his mate then why not invite the police in to show that it was a simple accident and there were no aggravating circumstances?

No inferences could be drawn from that except that it was an unfortunate accident, at the worst Cheney would have been negligent in handling the weapon.

Why delay and then obstruct a pretty straightforward investigation? Why, because it was necessary to have the delay.

Inference, something to hide.

Information suggests there had been drinking before the shooting episode.

Inference - Cheney had been drinking before the incident.

Imagine that. Mention chappaquiddick when the son of the man who killed a woman while driving drunk happens to be piss ass drunk while driving? Can't see where someone would make that leap.

Too late, I got in first, no prizes for second.

And if you can take off your partisan blinkers for a moment - I made the point that privilege was at work here, not party affiliation. It's wrong no matter who does it.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The police were not allowed access to him until the next morning. They tried, but were shoo'd off by the Secret Service.

Last time that I checked, Secret Service agents are law enforcement officials. The police are "shoo'd off" in these instances for security reasons. Besides, USSS conducts their own investigations into these matters. They are unbiased. They don't care about protecting the character of these guys, they are simply there to protect their lives. Also, do you hunt? Have you ever quail hunted? I have. This could easily happen. The nature of it is fast ointing and pulling the trigger. The guy who was shot could have been just as much to blame. He could have stepped into the blast, but no one is faulting him, because he got shot. Instead they forget that he apoligized to the VP. Unless you have quail hunted, you will never understand how such a thing could happen.

 

[insein]

Bullshit he cooperated. There was a deliberate obstruction of the police. Go back and read about it. Btw anyone who has a clue knows guns and any alcohol (or dope) don't go together, that's just common sense. No point in indulging in speculation, there was obstruction of the police, that much is known. That's a cover-up. Cheney's handlers aren't stupid, they know that in politics the cover-up is usually worse than the sin except when the sin is so great that the cover-up is worth the risk. So, if Cheney hadn't been drinking and had actually shot his mate then why not invite the police in to show that it was a simple accident and there were no aggravating circumstances?

No inferences could be drawn from that except that it was an unfortunate accident, at the worst Cheney would have been negligent in handling the weapon.

Why delay and then obstruct a pretty straightforward investigation? Why, because it was necessary to have the delay.

Inference, something to hide.

Information suggests there had been drinking before the shooting episode.

Inference - Cheney had been drinking before the incident.




Too late, I got in first, no prizes for second.

And if you can take off your partisan blinkers for a moment - I made the point that privilege was at work here, not party affiliation. It's wrong no matter who does it.

Who has partisan blinkers on? Where is your "that much is known" evidence that states CLEARLY that cheney covered up? Everything ive read states pretty much what happens on a hunting trip. These guys just happened to be rich and powerful men so "inferences" such as yours occur without proof. It doesnt matter when Jimbo shoots Billybob on a hunting trip how many Budweisers he had because no one cares. Vice President shoots his friend by accident and its a national conspiracy.

Also add the fact that the man who Cheney shot said there was no wrong-doing and this makes you out to be the partisan hack. I'd ask Mary-Jo if there was any wrong doing with Teddy but, well she can't speak to good from beyond the grave.