81 comments

  1. analogkid says:

    If Hodges survives the primary after Teilhet’s last ad I’ll be stunned. It won’t be the first time though.

    • Melb says:

      Hodges is tough and it helps that the ad is a complete lie and that Hodges has broad African American support to help him combat it, like DA of Dougherty Co. Greg Edwards.

      1. Hodges showed the video tape to the Grand Jury multiple times.

      2. While the testimony of the policeman was unsworn, there was written sworn testimony

      3. 5 of the 7 police officers testified and it was consistent with Glisson (the shooter)

      4. It is documented that Hodges met with the family at least 4 times after the grand jury decided not to indict.

      5. Hodges said he would re-open the case if there was new evidence and there never was any.

      Yet, Teilhet still continues to lie, it is his only option at this point.

  2. HowardRoark says:

    Both of these guys are tough as hell. They’ll give Olens run. He’s a bit thin skinned.

  3. ACCmoderate says:

    A lot of mudslinging going around in this race. Jane Kidd has effectively policed the governor’s race into a hugfest. Maybe she should try and clean up the AG contest a bit.

    • Melb says:

      It is also funny to me that Teilhet keeps saying how Hodges is wrong about prosecuting being relevant in the AG’s office, yet he has built his whole campaign around prosecutor issues that he has no experience dealing with.

  4. Melb says:

    Teilhet is NOT even qualified to be a staffer in the Attorney General’s race, let alone Attorney General.

    He did NOTHING in the legislature for 7 years and then his last year, held a press conference on a DNA bill that he didn’t even try to get passed after the press went away. He didn’t attend any of his Judiciary committee meetings – something you would think a candidate for AG may have some interest in.

    He has less experience in a courtroom then some of the 3Ls I go to school with. He has only tried 19 cases and most of them related to minor traffic incidents and his infamous case where he represented a teacher who tricked a student into eating dog food – way to protect the children Rob!

    As for the “per diems” those are supposed to be for housing/lodging, food and travel expenses. He used it as a bonus in his pay. Well, when you aren’t doing any legal work, I guess you got to get the money from somewhere.

  5. Amazingly, Hodges is against setting up a DNA database because local bureaucrats think it will mean more work for them.

    Think about what we’re talking about here. There is a murderer or rapist on the loose. The authorities have a DNA sample but no match. The rapist/murderer gets arrested for another felony. The local authorities do a DNA swab, send it to a state lab and the scientists make a match.

    Um, this person is a RAPIST. You’re telling me that because they may or may not be guilty of the other felony they are suspected of that their DNA, which by the way does not lie should not be allowed to be used to put them away for a crime that they actually committed.

    Being against this is insane. The guy’s that wrote the Constitution were writing protections for INNOCENT people to protect them from a corrupt British government trying to imprison them for crimes they didn’t commit. With DNA, you’ve either got a match or you don’t. Of course the locals have misgivings about how it will be implemented, and if Hodges wants to attack Teilhet on this he should say this is a good idea but this is how I’ll fund it.

    Instead, he uses his personal experience as a lazy bureaucrat to be against a proposal that could save lives. If you don’t believe me, please google the case of Lonnie David Franklin, Jr. He is a serial killer/rapist who was unable to be caught by the police for over 2 decades, even though they had DNA. Attorney General Jerry Brown pushed a controversial familial DNA program where they would test the DNA of other felons to look for family matches.

    Franklin had evaded arrest for decades, and one of his only victims who survived an attack had been living in isolation for the past 5 years for fear that he would come back to finish killing her. Luckily, a relative of Franklin was arrested and convicted of a felony and using his DNA they determined that the serial killer was a relative. Then they investigated relatives, looked for someone who fit the profile of the serial killer and finally arrested Franklin.

    While the DNA program that Teilhet has proposed may not ever solve a cold case as dramatic as Franklin’s, it is a known fact that people that commit felonies are likely to commit or be suspected of commiting future felonies. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of innocent Americans, and I am sure if DNA technology had been around back then they wouldn’t have excluded something like a DNA database – may I remind you that these are the same guys that put the Census into our founding document?

    Again, Hodges should be ashamed. This type of technology is catching the guilty and helping to exonerate the truly innocent in other states, and Hodges is against it because it might mean some extra costs and work for local law enforcement. Shame on him.

    • benevolus says:

      Chris, I can’t believe you are saying that. You can’t presume someone who has been arrested as already being guilty. THAT is the problem. The police get to build a database of very sensitive personal information on you- even if you are innocent. Fingerprints are one thing, but DNA info is quite personal. We have to be very careful about how we restrict someones rights when they haven’t been convicted of anything.

      Having said all that, I’m still a Teilhet supporter, I just disagree with him on this.

  6. Melb says:

    Chris,

    Hodges is all for gathering DNA evidence of guilty criminals, sex offenders, and violent criminals.

    It is a waste of the state’s money to pay for DNA samples from people who write felony checks.

    And to take DNA samples from people who are NOT GUILTY is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    Maybe if Teilhet knew anything about the law or actually read the Constitution instead of going out and drinking/socializing and just blowing smoke up people’s behinds he would know that.

    • So what you’re telling me is that if a brilliant serial murderer and rapist evades capture by the police but then screws up and writes a bad check and the police go and haul him in to take him to court, and they are like while we are at it let’s take your DNA sample to see if you’ve done anything else bad, and that turns the felony bad check (or felony theft from Walmart or whatever you want) into an arrest for a terrible crime, you’re against it why?

      Your DNA doesn’t bear false witness against you. The only theory I have for why Ken Hodges is against this is that he knows first hand that shoddy prosecutors might try to take inconclusive DNA evidence (like where there is only a 90% certainty that the suspect did it as opposed to 100%) and ram through convictions that will then be overturned, seeing as he was a shoddy prosecutor.

      But I’m sorry, I just don’t see how taking DNA evidence from someone who ends up being not guilty will ultimately be found to be unconstitutional.

      All the time, police officers bring in people for questioning that end up being not guilty. Then later, they will be interviewing a witness to a different crime who will describe some guy they’ve never actually busted but know to be trouble. The cop will then go get the picture or find a picture of that guy, go back to the witness, say is this your guy? If they say yes, they’ll then have that person as a lead to put together further evidence to make sure they ultimately bring in the person who committed the crime.

      DNA is nothing but a very high tech picture. 200 years ago you had the founders writing a Constitution with British torture, coercion and dishonesty as the main issues of the day. They couldn’t have even dreamed about something like DNA which not only proves the guilt of the guilty but also exonerates the innocent.

    • Here’s the other thing. You say Hodges is all for taking the DNA from the guilty and using it to see if they are guilty of any other crimes. But you know as well as I do that in court prior convictions are almost always disallowed in testimony for the current trial.

      So by your logic, you should be just as against a convicted felon’s DNA being used against him in a different case as you are a wrongly accused person’s DNA being used against him in a different case. The whole point of a DNA database is that DNA evidence is NOT the equivalent of testimony where someone says “this guy done bad things in the past, therefor he must have done this new crime he is accused of.”

      DNA is a scientific test. IF the police have a quality sample of someone associated with a crime, they test that sample against another sample of DNA and a computer looks for an identical match and either says Yes this is identical or No, it isn’t. The computer doesn’t say “this guy’s done bad things in the past so therefor I think this DNA looks similar.”

      Basically what I’m saying is, you’re either for a DNA database or you aren’t. I don’t think it’s practical for the government to go around collecting everyone’s DNA, so when someone gets arrested for a crime (even if they end up being exonerated) it’s as good a time as any to test them. If they turn out to be a rapist or murderer who had previously eluded arrest for a different crime – TOUGH LUCK. In America, you don’t have the right to avoid the consequences of a crime you commited because you are smarter than the police. THAT is a perversion of justice and NOT what the kind of protection the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Chris,

        If I follow your logic correctly, the police can enter a person’s home without a warrant, look for evidence, and if they don’t find any, no harm, no foul? Only the guilty have something to hide?

        Just for arguments sake, let’s say a case is more complex. A woman goes on a date, takes the man home, and has sex with him. He leaves, but the ex-boyfriend comes in and kills her. It’s a one night stand, she met him at a bar, whatever, but he doesn’t know she was murdered. Years later, DNA is taken because the dater is arrested for something else he didn’t do.

        DNA can be proof of something, but it can also be applied to be more than it is. In my scenario, it will show the suspect was there and even had sex with a victim. Does it show that he killed her? No. Is it enough for a conviction? Probably.

        My problem is not the misapplication of DNA evidence (which still may happen), but in creating a registry from people “who have nothing to hide.” Do the words “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation” or “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” ring a bell?

        • Doug, you should take a look at the recent California cold case that was solved by using familial DNA (which is kind of similar to what Teilhet wants to do).

          When scientists found a family match on DNA in a string of unsolved murders, they first identified the suspect and then did additional detective work, things like did this person live in the areas where the killings happened at the time of the killings, have connections to the people/area etc. In other words, the DNA opened the door for the investigators to then get to work and tie the DNA evidence to an abundance of other evidence to solve the case.

          I don’t want to venture too far into what if land, but I’d have to imagine under your proposed scenario, ex-boyfriends would be immediate suspects and it wouldn’t be too hard at the time of the crime to track down the one night stand, looking at emails, phone records, interviewing witnesses who saw them at the bar, etc. The guy with the DNA problem is going to have a problem right away is my guess, whether the cops put together the ex-boyfriend angle or not.

          DNA is just one piece of the puzzle. It would still be up to investigators to prove motive, time, place, and a lot of other things.

          Serious question for you – in your example let’s say the one night stand guy commits a felony in the future (but didn’t do the one night stand murder). Do you still have a problem with him submitting his DNA to be tested against unsolved cases? Or is it only when he’s *completely* innocent?

          • Doug Grammer says:

            After he is convicted using regular evidence on the crime he is currently booked on, if they have not used DNA in that case and assuming there is a budget for it, I have no problem with a DNA sample as they are shipped off to prison.

            That being said, I’d like to hear what SCOTUS thinks on this with the words “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation” or “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” in mind.

            • OK. See, I don’t see much difference personally. You seem to be implying that we all have a right not to have our DNA tested to see if we have a connection to an unsolved case – but that you lose that right once you are convicted of an unrelated crime.

              IF that right exists, I hardly think being convicted of an unrelated felony should cause it to be nullified.

              That said, to get the ball rolling, I’m all for banking DNA of people convicted of a felony as a first step in the right direction.

            • Doug Grammer says:

              People who are convicted lose certain rights. Until they are convicted, they still retain them. I’m not a lawyer, these are my gut opinions, and I’d like to see if the SCOTUS agrees with them. To clarify, I’m not stating that I am right, I’ve done tons of research on it, or that anyone else is wrong.

              Now if I come back with a court case cited, that means I’m a little more certain than my opinion has basis. I’m not that motivated to look it up yet.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            I think in the case you are talking about, they found a family member of the suspect with DNA and then found him from there.

  7. Melb says:

    It is stupid that we are arguing about this because Teilhet couldn’t even get a committee vote on his DNA bill and it would be a completely unfunded mandate.

    The state barely has the money to get the DNA evidence now and there are waiting times of over 1 year for prosecutors trying to get DNA evidence to put criminals behind bars.

    If it even did pass, it would flood the system and make it harder for actual criminals to be convicted while the state is amassing a large database for a police state.

    Teilhet can take his half-assed attempt to pander the state somewhere else.

    • A lot of people have lodged the same complaints against sex offender registries. Is Ken also against them because they take time and money to implement?

  8. Melb says:

    No. That is a ridiculous and not the same thing at all.

    In fact, Hodges has helped put together nurses sexual assault units to collect DNA evidence to make sure that sex offenders would be convicted. Something Teilhet wants to copy now.

    • So Teilhet is copying a good idea that Hodges had, according to your logic. And Hodges is so petty that once someone copies his good idea he’s no longer in favor of it and starts whining about it.

      Some leadership. Whatever happened to not caring who gets the credit.

  9. Melb says:

    You are confusing the issues:

    Hodges is for stronger sex offender registries and convicted felon DNA database. Hodges help set us the nurses units to make sure this data was collected and could be used for effective prosecutions. Teilhet wants to copy someone who actually is effective and has good ideas – totally understandable.

    Hodges is not for innocent people in a DNA database or for non-violent, non-sexual felons in a DNA database.
    – Hodges actually understands the issues surrounding DNA and thinks, like most people, that Teilhet’s bill was shameless pandering.

    Understand now?

  10. B Balz says:

    I won’t vote for an AG who was not a prosecutor. But this Bill is intriguing….

    @Chris

    When I first heard of Rep. Teilhet proposing to collect DNA upon a felony arrest, I reacted strongly against the idea. I still do not like the idea, potential abuse, completely abrogates the presumption of innocence, reeks of Big Brother, yet almost 1/2 of US allows DNA collection upon felony arrest.

    Maybe I was wrong, this Bill offers some very sobering results:

    “…Klein’s bill would also help catch repeat offenders more quickly. According to the NYS Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), on average, offenders linked to crimes on the DNA databank had approximately 11 prior arrests and five prior convictions. Eighty-three percent of offenders linked to sexual assault cases were in the state’s DNA databank for a crime other than a sex-related offense. Under Klein’s bill, should an individual not be convicted, they could request the purging of their DNA sample from the database. …”

    http://yonkerstribune.typepad.com/yonkers_tribune/2010/07/senate-passes-klein-bill-to-collect-dna-upon-felony-arrest-on-3rd-anniversary-of-murder-of-syracuse-woman.html

    @Melb Consider just one very real statistic: We have more people incarcerated in PRISONS, that will be under financially driven (we’re broke) early release pressures. When those folks start hitting the streets, we are talking about nothing less than civil war.

    Ben Franklin’s famous quote, ““Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” comes to mind.

  11. willowjet says:

    Let’s hope that if Hodges is for a stronger Sex Offender Registry, he supports the original intent of the sex offender registry — to track and monitor dangerous and violent predators. Georgia’s political pandering and reliance on myth and media-created hysteria has created a bloated registry and ineffective living and working restrictions that overburden law enforcement and provide a false sense of security. For once, I wish a politician (and, let’s face it, Attorney Generals are politicians when they are running for office) would support policies based on research, facts, and justice instead of on the easiest way to use misinformation to whip up a public frenzy and garner cheap votes. We are ruining the lives of older teens and young 20-somethings who agreed to consensual sex (but didn’t actually do anything) or had consensual sex with 15 and almost 16 year-olds. They are posted on the same violent offender list, and treated the same way, as rapists and pedophiles. I work in a large university system, and I see these cases first-hand. These young men made terrible mistakes in judgement, but they are no threat to your children. I do not want an Attorney General who supports these over-broad and draconian laws simply because he loves to say he is “protecting children” and he knows that the public, largely educated by Nancy Grace, will support him, even though the public has no idea of the ineffectiveness and unintended consequences of these laws. I want common sense and justice. Follow the link if you want real information:
    http://www.corrections.com/news/article/24500-facts-and-fiction-about-sex-offenders

    • polisavvy says:

      I bet you are really enjoying watching all this sniping and drama, aren’t you? There are times that I am finding it quite amusing as well.

  12. Melb says:

    Jack Smith/Charles Rehberg – your obsession with Ken Hodges is sick – I am not just saying that as a Ken Hodges supporter – please – get some help – you desperately need it.

  13. georgiaguy1 says:

    I find all the moral superiority from Chris Huttman in this comment thread fascinating. This is the same Chris Huttman who works for the Teilhet campaign and embarrassed them all by announcing that they were celebrating using the mom in a tragic death of a young black man as a “slam dunk” that “Teilhet did in his superman outfit”? Same Chris Huttman or a different Chris Huttman?

  14. Jack Smith says:

    “…..using the mom in a tragic death of a young black man”

    I think it’s borderline racism to suggest (as the Hodges sockpuppets have) that Mrs Walker was “used” or “manipulated” into making an ad. Clearly, this woman is very clear about what she thinks about the case and no one forced her to make an ad. Given the exact same circumstances, I don’t think many of us would do differently.

    By the way, has Ken Hodges ever been stopped with illegal drugs in the auto he was riding in?

    • polisavvy says:

      Okay, I’ll bite. I think I’ve noticed where you have posted something on here previously about “illegal drugs in the auto he was riding in.” Could you expound on this a little for us, if it is legitimate? For those on the fence, something like this type of information (if legitimate) could be game changers for them. As for me, well I early voted last Friday.

  15. Melb says:

    Jack Smith = Charles Rehberg = crazy person obsessed with Ken Hodges. Please go see a therapist.

  16. georgiaguy1 says:

    Why would it be racist to suggest Mrs Walker was “used” in making the ad?? The Teilhet camp sought her out to make the commercial. They are spending their advertising money running the ad, not to get her story out, but because they think it will win Rob the primary. They are USING her to get what they want. Furthermore the ad is NOT TRUE. 2 of the local news stations have already done segments on the lies in the ad in the past couple days

    http://staging.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=146293&provider=top

    http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/ag-candidate-rolls-out-controversial-ad

    • Look, you can say that if you were in the same position as Kenneth Walker’s mother you wouldn’t do the same advertisement.

      But she is not being used. Nobody is forcing her to do anything. This is her story and she wants to tell it. And as far as I can tell, the rest of Kenneth Walker’s family doesn’t have a problem with it either.

      • georgiaguy1 says:

        If I were Kenneth Walker’s mother, I would be devastated by the loss of my son’s life. We can only hope the likes of your crew wouldn’t come knocking on my door with a way to take my anger of my son’s death to a national arena. You know better Chris. You know it was just a dirty political move, but you guys were so excited about having a “slam dunk” in this race and furthering your own political careers you used her. I’d be disgusted if I were her and I read your article stating doing that ad was like “winning a slam dunk contest”.

        • B Balz says:

          “…You know it was just a dirty political move…”

          From the cheap seats it seems to me the guy who is using his real name is on the business end of your dirty pol move.

          Who ARE you? Or does everyone here know you?

        • I’ve figured out what bugs me the most about the attitude of the Hodges people. It’s the entitlement. Hodges is not entitled to be attorney general and that’s why they are ultimately upset at Teilhet. They can’t stomach the fact that someone else might have something contrary to say about his ambition.

          Teilhet’s ad is very effective, hence the “slam dunk”, but I have a feeling the Hodges people would be just as belligerent no matter the subject or how hard hitting Teilhet’s argument against him had been.

          • georgiaguy1 says:

            I think the Teilhet campaign has been the ones acting with a sense of entitlement. Here’s why:
            I believe Rob Teilhet thought he was going to run this race unopposed before Ken got in it. All his Atlanta law buddies would back him up. He thought he would obviously get the Democratic nomination and get some name recognition for himself running a statewide campaign then he would later run for a position he was actually qualified for. (Of course there is no chance a completely unexperienced Democrat is going to win a statewide election in Georgia). When Ken Hodges got in this race it ruined his plan. He then had to follow through with running, but people want to vote for the Democrat who has the right experience to give the Republicans a real run for their money. Teilhet realized it wasn’t going to help his name recognition if he lost the primary, so he decided to go as dirty as possible and try to win at any cost. In the end, it’s not going to help him anyway because he went too far and put blatant lies into his ad about Ken. As the truth comes out more and more Georgians are becoming disgusted with what Teilhet did and he will be remembered for the dirty campaign he ran against his fellow Democrat.

            • B Balz says:

              I don’t know about y’all, but that was GOOD for me, thanks guys.

              Ahem, hmmmmmhm… there’s more:

  17. iamnotasocialist says:

    I’d just like to point out that the Hodges campaign is accusing Teilhet of dirty politics, but aren’t looking inward at all.

    Melissa Marietta Sams has been posting all over GALiberal, calling Teilhet supporters “stupid” and a “failure,” calls Teilhet Jim Galloway’s “pet,” and all the while continues to get it wrong on Andy Young. I’m voting for Teilhet.

    P.S.– the “Prosecutor” strawman argument doesn’t work on me. So don’t use it, okay?

    • Melb says:

      That supporter was acted stupid – that is not my fault – he was like “oh I have proof that Hodges wants to run for Governor in 2014” and I was like “show your documents” and then he didn’t. That was stupid.

  18. Melb says:

    @ Iamnotasocialist:

    That supporter was acted stupid – that is not my fault – he was like “oh I have proof that Hodges wants to run for Governor in 2014” and I was like “no, he doesn’t” so go ahead and “show your documents” and then he didn’t. That was stupid.

    I can’t believe you would call me out for saying Teilhet was a failure when I was responding to Teilhet’s press release that said “failure doesn’t merit a promotion” – kind of ridiculous and imposing a double standard – don’t you think?

    I told that same thing to Jim Galloway btw and I stand behind that argument.

    And I only have gone negative since that utter lack for the truth Walker ad has come out. Before then I stayed very focused on highlighting Hodges CIVIL and CRIMINAL experience compared to Teilhet’s lack of any experience.

    • iamnotasocialist says:

      I just don’t think that someone so close to a campaign should be making such comments, that’s all.

      • Melb says:

        I have been involved in GA politics since 03-04, not going to stop now.

        However, I do not get paid by the Hodges campaign, Chris Huttman actually does get paid by Teilhet.

        • iamnotasocialist says:

          I don’t know who Chris Huttman is, but I do know that both your husband and sister are high up on the Hodges campaign. You may not be paid by them, but you cannot separate yourself from them in any way, shape, or form.

          • Melb says:

            Again, I help and have donated to DuBose Porter, Carol Porter, Elena Parent, and Ken Hodges, and I volunteered many hours on Mark Taylor’s Gov. campaign in the past. I was an intern for DuBose in ’05 and that summer I interned at the DPG. I started the YD chapter at West GA when I was there and I like to volunteer, blog, and generally help out on campaigns – not going to stop now.

          • Melb says:

            Chris Huttman works with Bobby Kahn at LUC Media – who was directly hired to do Teilhet’s media buy.

        • iamnotasocialist says:

          And I just looked at Teilhet’s disclosures, and I have yet to see Chris Huttman listed.

  19. Jack Smith says:

    You might do a google search for who “Joe Stanley” is and ask yourself who has sleazy political operatives.

  20. Melb says:

    Jack Smith = Charles Rehberg = crazy person who stalks Ken Hodges. Charles, I know that being involved in a law suit can make someone go over the deep end and consume their life, but please try to remain sane. Go talk to your therapist(s) and seek help.

  21. Melb says:

    His stalking of Ken Hodges is crazy. The charges against Hodges were dismissed b/c Hodges didn’t do anything wrong. As for the others – that doesn’t concern me or Hodges. I mean, this guy has no life and stalks and when I mean STALKS I mean he does it like a full time job where he gets paid. Yes, his obsession with Hodges is crazy.

    • Jack Smith says:

      “The charges against Hodges were dismissed b/c Hodges didn’t do anything wrong. ”

      Another flat-out lie from the Ken Hodges camp. The charges were ABSOLUTELY NOT dismissed on their merits. Rather, Hodges got immunity. Not the same thing.

      “I mean, this guy has no life and stalks and when I mean STALKS I mean he does it like a full time job where he gets paid.”

      Another lie. I am not Charles Rehberg. He posts here under his own name (apparently). As for someone being paid to post, I would submit that your multiple posts on numerous boards pumping Ken Hodges are far more suggestive of a paid poster than anything else.

      As for Rehberg personally, he had nothing to do with the following:
      1) Hodges’ reckless driving:
      http://www.walb.com/global/story.asp?s=2160330&ClientType=Printable
      2) Conduct in Hodges office:
      http://www.walb.com/global/Story.asp?s=4767924
      3) Hodges’ bungling (or sabotage-depending on one’s perspective) of the Kenneth Walker case
      4) Hodges resigning from office to work for Phoebe Putney

      What Rehberg was subject to was a trumped-up criminal case that Hodges brought that was thrown out three (3) times by a trial judge.

  22. Jack Smith says:

    “I stand by my original post”

    Which (apart from being factually incorrect) is non-responsive (as usual) to the plethora of Hodges scandals and screw-ups.

    What we are treated to here is a paid poster/spammer who wishes to recite a mantra about Ken Hodges’ “experience” as a prosecutor, yet never wants to examine in detail the well-documented failures, disfunctions and corruption of Hodges’ tenure in public office.

    I suppose Melba’s talking points haven’t been written for those issues yet.

    P.S. Covering one’s posterior through immunity is not the same as winning on the merits.

  23. georgiaguy1 says:

    First 2 local news channels did segments on the lies in the Teilhet “Last Minute” ad regarding the Walker case:

    http://staging.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=146293&provider=top

    http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/ag-candidate-rolls-out-controversial-ad

    Now the AJC is confirming that the ad is FALSE. Not True. Not Mostly True. Not Half True. Not Barely True. Just plain FALSE!!!!!:

    http://politifact.com/georgia/statements/2010/jul/15/rob-teilhet/candidate-says-opponent-botched-prosecution-fatal-/

    Shame on you Rob Teilhet for using a grieving mother to try to further your career and blatantly lying to try to destroy the reputation of your fellow Democrat. The lies in this ad have demonstrated not only Teilhet’s sleazy win at any cost strategies but his vast lack of understanding of this case and the law in general. Maybe if he had tried a single criminal case in his entire career he would have been able to understand enough to realize that with some simple research news sources would be able to find out the truth on this case for themselves. Now the question becomes – When this race is over, will the voters of Georgia forgive Rob Teilhet for trying to deceive and manipulate them, or is his future in Georgia politics over forever?

    • MouthoftheSouth says:

      That’s totally ridiculous. Let me respond to this. Politifact loves bashing statements as false. They claimed Roy Barnes was lying about funding education when he said “they should scrape the gold dome to pay for teachers” http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2010/jun/15/roy-barnes/barnes-suggests-mining-state-capitol-education-gol/

      Besides, their truth value result was about Teilhet’s statement that the prosecution was “botched”. That’s the false statement referred to in the piece but it seems pretty clear that prosecution didn’t go well, so I guess they just feel “botched” was too strong.

      That’s how they are at politifact.

      • georgiaguy1 says:

        Oh wow!! My bad!!! I just reread – you are totally right!! Politifact isn’t saying the ad is a lie, they are saying that your candidate is a blatant liar and that the words coming out of Rob Teilhet’s mouth are completely FALSE!! I stand corrected.

Comments are closed.