CUCCINELLI GLOBAL WARMING SUIT THROWN OUT

COOCH HUMILIATED

Comments

[Valley Indie]

You're not the brightest bulb in the box, are you? Quashing a subpeona without prejudice is not even CLOSE to the same thing as throwing out a suit.

This is a procedural setback, nothing more.

Cooch's suit is still a longshot, and probably ill-advised. But this ruling hardly ends it.

[Jack]

I still do not understand how, since Mann was a STATE employee and all work products belong to the EMPLOYER, how UVA can deny the State access to anything Mann produced as a State employee.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

LOL, I was waiting for this one.

[Dan]

The judge determined that the AG was required to include an "objective basis" to believe that fraud has been committed? He doesn't believe that right wing nutzery is objective? Must be one of those liberal "activist" judges.

This in no way hurts Cuccinelli. We all know this suit has nothing to do with the law or the interest of the Commonwealth or the well being of the citizens of the Commonwealth. This suit is just one of Cuccinelli's poltical stunts. And he has derived the political benefit from it that he calculated when he embarked on this waste of taxpayer money.

The result is unimportant. His base loves it and are with him.

[Will C.]

It is impossible to humiliate Cooch...really, impossible...

[Chubber]

Let's put this in a different context. Say a listed company has two financial managers who massage the numbers and refer in emails to what they are doing as "hiding the decline." If those emails were to be leaked, that certainly would be grounds for a SEC subpoena, no? Or, what if the company was receiving research grants (say, on the use of chemical dispersants for oil spills in the Gulf) and two of its scientists used the same term? Read the attached--it certainly presents strong evidence that Mann et al were engaged in some level of deception with the data they were playing with. If this was done on the VA taxpayers' dime (Mann was at UVA from 1999 through 2005), then this presents at least a threshold indication of fraud worthy of investigation by state law enforcement authority under FATA. Let's let the AG do his job here.

http://junkscience.com/Hide_the_decline.html

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

It's like everything else in the radical rightwing world view - doesn't have to be real, you just have to believe it's real. That why it so easy to mock the dumbasses. In this case the dumbasses were being worked by the Cooch. He is brilliant, but disgusting.

[Lovettsville Lady]

It was NOT thrown out! The AG's office has to re-write it and send it back. That's all.

[Tonto]

It was NOT thrown out! The AG's office has to re-write it and send it back. That's all.

Posted by: Lovettsville Lady | August 30, 2010 at 03:43 PM

Lady, you're outa your fucking mind. Don't tell me, you're a birther too?

[Lovettsville Lady]

I don't think Ben is a birther. Nor am I. In any case, Ken's case was definitely NOT thrown out. The judge wants more evidence before he issues a subpeona. Happens all the time. Worthy of a big shrug, and a re-write.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Lovettsville, they threw out 4 of the 5 grants totally, and said PERHAPS he could try again on the 5th.

[change]

When Cooch wins it’s a “RIGHT WING FEDERAL JUDGE HENRY HUDSON REFUSES TO DISMISS CUCCINELLI'S HEALTH CARE SUIT” in 28 font heading.

When he gets a setback he gets “COOCH HUMILIATED” in 58 font heading.

Looks like he can never really win with you Ben. Is it something personal…lol??

Careful or you will lose your “fair and balanced” cred’s.

[Glen Tomkins]

Reality has that well-known liberal bias.

Now, you could tell that this was a biased judge who made these rulings. Just look at the judge's own words as reported in the WaPo piece. The judge claims that Cuccinelli would have to state a "reason to believe" that fraud had been committed, and that this belief would have to have an "objective basis".

Wow! That's straight, 100%, pure, unadulterated bias in favor of the reality-based community. A bald-faced appeal to sense and reason.

We allow that sort of thing in the Commonwealth? On the bench!?

[bubberella]

har

[Dave]

Here's my favorite part of the AG's statement "While this was not an outright ruling in our favor..." Spin baby spin! The Judge quashed the subpoena without prejudice, while expressing skepticism as to whether the AG could state an objective basis. But the AG is obviously undaunted.