Beck has come out and said this guy is probably a scumbag. But since he is someone willing to describe some of the aggressive handling by this aministration and that Union officials have said he would recieve donations if he voted in favor of the HC Bill then Beck wanted to speak to him on what he knew.

Yes, Martini, that’s probably it.

Don’t bother MartiniShark, Glynnis is not interested in all the facts. She’s sticks strictly to the Huff PO, Daily’ KO’s line.

You are correct that Beck said just because he is a scumbag, doesn’t mean he’s lying. But the libs always go this route, if someone is saying something you don’t like, you destroy them at all costs.

How’s that line from the song go? ‘Don’t gimmie no lines and keep your hands to yourself.”

You mean like Senator Kerry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s merry band of Swift Boat Liars? Or Saxby Chambliss smearing of another decorated veteran, Max Cleland. Is that what you mean, Michelle F?

Come to think of it, I do remember how the left brought out the hate wagon for the Swift Boat VETERANS, King.

Or John Murtha smearing those Marines and calling them murderers. Then they were cleared. Oops.

I do enjoy how many have stampeded to descredit the guy before the interview has even been aired. He groped a few staff members (“allegedly”, let’s not forget) therefore his experience with Rahm and the Unions is therefore completely immaterial.

“he groped multiple male staffers working in his office”

Wow! I can see how gays want to be ale to serve openly in the Military.

MichelleF says:
March 9, 2010 at 4:08 pm

Come to think of it, I do remember how the left brought out the hate wagon for the Swift Boat VETERANS, King.

—

Michelle, dearest, you extreme rightists have to learn that we rational, sensible and responsible Americans are not going to roll over and play dead whilst you attempt to turn our democracy and our Republic into something wholly unrecognizable by our founding fathers and mothers.

Who cares what the message is. They just want to destroy the messenger.

Libs? Make a mountain out of a mole hill?

Libs? Who run with the least bit of information and try to make it something it might not be?

BTW Glynnis, this is stuff we already know about this guy, he’s a dirtball. But like Beck said, “Shouldn’t he have a chance to speak?” The guy wants to say something, Beck said I’ll give you an hour.

Since Rove is in the news today for his book being out, let’s all pause to remember how some couldn’t restrain themselves when reporting ssssssssstuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57UyhQn0xBg

BTW: How is your buddy Shuster’s twitter silence these days?

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Massa. It’s all about the 0……obama. ;)

So for the record, when someone like Roman Polanski drugs and rapes a 13 year old girl we are all being uptight and should let the guy skate and make movies, but groping staff members is a serious charge and no one should listen to that type of person ever again?

Ah, Glynnis?

I think you better rewrite the top of the page to now say….

Attention Glenn Beck/ Larry King? Massa Under Investigation For Allegedly Groping MULTIPLE Male Staffers/Interns

I do believe some are even calling it an Exclusive with Larry.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/exclusives_that_arent/eric_massa_also_appearing_on_larry_king_tonight_154486.asp

From Crash and Burn to Exclusive, my,my,my.

Olby Sucks says:
March 9, 2010 at 4:42 pm

Well, now with him popping up on Larry King too at the very least it’s a…….

“I might be going down but I’m taking a few with me (deal).”

Puck, you inspired me to bring some citations re that whole indicting people thing:

Dec 9, 2005:
OLBERMANN: Viveca Novak may not be Karl Rove’s get-out-of-trouble-free card after all. Her testimony reportedly conflicts with that of Rove’s attorney…. If Luskin’s revelation of the Novak-Luskin conversation is presumably all or most of what kept Karl Rove from being indicted through the first grand jury, does it follow that if the Luskin account falls apart because of that March-October timeline difference, that the result could be an indictment of Mr. Rove?
SHUSTER: It certainly seems that way, Keith. And Luskin himself has told us for several weeks now that Karl Rove remains under investigation, and that this is certainly a potential outcome.

April 6, 2006:
OLBERMANN: Also in his filing, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he won’t be calling Karl Rove or Stephen Hadley or George Tenet as witnesses at trial.
SHUSTER: Federal prosecutors say that you don’t usually call somebody to the witness stand if you are thinking about making them a target in a separate case. And that would complain Karl Rove and Stephen Hadley, who clearly might have testimony, all from this particular case.

April 20, 2006:
OLBERMANN: Karl Rove exits stage right, just an acknowledgment of the importance of the midterms, just freshening up the White House staff. Or was it to shift him out of the spotlight because the Plamegate grand jury is again looking to indict him? David Shuster with the breaking news!
SHUSTER: …in every single case we have found, Keith, that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, when he designates somebody as official A in an indictment, that person eventually does get indicted themselves…. So I think it’s fair to assume that perhaps the new White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten, saw the prospects that Rove could still be in some trouble and decided, You know what? We want him focusing on the elections anyway instead of policy.

April 26, 2006:
OLBERMANN: So that Mr. Rove appeared voluntarily today, given the enormous possibility that he could have contradicted previous testimony, and thus digging a deeper hole for himself, might someone conclude that he had nothing to lose, that talking his way out of being charged is a risk he needed to take?
SHUSTER: Absolutely. And we’ve been given every indication that Karl Rove felt he had no other opportunity, that he felt that the evidence that his own lawyer had provided to prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that was supposed to clear Karl Rove out of all of this, that didn’t work.

April 28, 2006:
SHUSTER: The bad news in all this for Karl Rove is that it means that after three and a half hours of testimony, where he’s answering a wide variety of questions on Wednesday, his fifth grand jury appearance, the prosecutors were not willing to clear Karl Rove, nor were they willing to give any sort of signal that Rove’s answers satisfied the grand jury.

May 5, 2006:
SHUSTER: Well, the tea leaves seem to suggest that Karl Rove is going to get indicted…. He went to such great lengths today to try to avoid mentioning Karl Rove or talking about his status. Now, that, in and of itself, seemed to signal something unique.
OLBERMANN: More rocks being overturned, and more worms beneath.

May 8 2006:
SHUSTER: Well, Karl Rove’s legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted.

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/06/roving_reporter.php

If the House ethics committee does with Massa like they are doing with Rangel, we may never be allowed to know what actually happened. Or, as in Rangel’s case, we may yet learn where his million dollar bank account came from, the three rent controlled apartments he owns and his “villa” in the Caribbean so don’t hold your breath on Massa, but I note that the dogs have been loosed for attack…..

(White) Royal King, on your 4:27 post, you forgot to spell America with a ‘k’.

The Real Royal King says:
March 9, 2010 at 4:27 pm

Michelle, dearest, you extreme rightists have to learn that we rational, sensible and responsible Americans are not going to roll over and play dead whilst you attempt to turn our democracy and our Republic into something wholly unrecognizable by our founding fathers and mothers.

Yes, the founding fathers always wanted socialism… that’s why they wrote it into the Constitution.

Wait…

Yes, the founding fathers always wanted socialism… that’s why they wrote it into the Constitution.

—

They didn’t write capitalism into the Constitution either, did they? In point of fact, with the exception of comity among the various states and interstate commerce, economics is not addressed. Why? Many of the colonies and the states which followed were strongly communal, in a self-sustaining, free-standing manner.

writer says:
March 9, 2010 at 6:07 pm

(White) Royal King, on your 4:27 post, you forgot to spell America with a ‘k’.

—

Actually, I was using “America” and I was using it as the nation which stands with its principles, not the nation extreme rightists see to seek. That would be Amerika, and the extreme rightists Amerikans, like Afrikaans from the unreformed South Afrika.

This is going to be a great interview. Glen(n) at his very best. It is going to transform Amerika. Poor Massa. He’ll never knew what hit him.

— Never mind.

Spelling America with a ‘k’ is a far left thing from the sixties, which is where you’re still living. Only instead of the 1960s, you’re still in the1860s.